PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT

R.A.F. Transfers (Appeals)

Mr. Mathers: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will allow to men who volunteered for air crew duties in the R.A.F. and are subsequently transferred to the Royal Navy or the Army, and to their employers the opportunities of appealing against posting.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): A man who has volunteered and has been accepted for air crew duties is a member of the Armed Forces, and has no appeal against transfer from one Service to another. The civilian work of some of these men is, however, of such importance that they would not have been called up under the National Service Acts, and before such a man is posted to the Navy or the Army his present employer is given an opportunity of making representations against his withdrawal from industry. Such representations are considered by the District Man-Power Board.

Mr. Mathers: Do I take it that that involves cases where men fail in their tests for air-crew duties?

Mr. Bevin: Volunteers for aircraft duties who fail in their training, do not form part of the transfer scheme.

Ex-Service Men (Rehabilitation)

Sir Patrick Hannon: asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on the recuperative work in process under the direction of his Ministry to enable wounded men of the fighting services to return to gainful employment while receiving treatment for physical disability.

Mr. Bevin: The schemes at present operated by my Department to assist disabled persons, ex-Service and others, to return to gainful employment are directed particularly to the provision of courses of vocational training and industrial rehabilitation on the completion of medical treatment. I am sending my hon. Friend an explanatory leaflet on these schemes. Section 3 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act will enable me to develop measures of industrial rehabilitation under adequate medical supervision and I already have at Egham an industrial rehabilitation centre, with a resident doctor.

Sir P. Hannon: Does my right hon. Friend contemplate an extension of similar institutions in other parts of the country?

Mr. Bevin: I do not know about this particular institution because, in dealing with the disabled, I have to vary the institutions to meet different types of disablement.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Will the Minister consider placing one of these institutions in South Wales, as persons have been sent from there to a place on the bomb path, which is not suitable for neurotic cases?

Mr. Bevin: It is difficult to establish these institutions while I am very short of doctors, and I must wait until I can staff them.

Sir P. Hannon: asked the Minister of Labour if he will give the figures, as at the nearest convenient date, of the cases of wounded or injured men dealt with successfully at the Birmingham Accident Hospital; how many have been rehabilitated in gainful employment; and if the establishment of similar institutions at other centres is receiving consideration.

Mr. Bevin: I am aware of the particular scheme which I think my hon. Friend has in mind, but as it is not set up under the auspices of my Department I have no authoritative information as to the numbers dealt with. My officers are in touch with the hospital with a view to assisting disabled people to obtain employment and to arrange, where necessary, for vocational training. Schemes of industrial rehabilitation within the scope of Section 3 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 will be developed by my Department as found to be necessary.

Sir P. Hannon: Has my right hon. Friend made any special appeal to employers to assist him by taking these rehabilitated men?

Mr. Bevin: I have established special officers of my Department in the regions to deal with these disablement cases. I thought the better way was for them to make personal contacts with employers, rather than to make general public appeals.

Hardship Tribunal, Wigan (Appeal)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has now reached a decision in the case of Stanley Miller, Aspull, Wigan, about which he has been informed, who is under 18 years of age, whose appeal to the local hardship tribunal was turned down though he is employed on work of national importance; and is he aware that his father has been on the sick list for about 10 years and that he has already six brothers serving in His Majesty's forces.

Mr. Bevin: I am arranging for a further medical examination and will consider the case again as soon as I know the result.

Mr. Davies: Why should this case depend on a medical examination? The man has asked for deferment for three reasons, one being that he already has six brothers in the Forces. Surely he ought to secure deferment on that ground, if not on the other grounds?

Mr. Bevin: The law does not allow me to waive the duty of going into the Forces because of the number in the family who are serving, and it is not for me to alter the law. In this case I learned that the man was in, I think, category Grade II, and as a lėtter has been received doubting that category, I think the best way of dealing with it is to have another medical examination.

Mr. Davies: I beg to give notice that I will raise this question on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — FLYING BOMB ATTACKS

Evacuation

Mr. E. J. Williams: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will issue instructions to man-power boards in reception areas to revise the decisions on redundancy in the distributive trades and

local government offices, consequent on work entailed on billeting and feeding the increased population.

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir. I am satisfied that the existing procedure is adequate to meet the situation. Where it can be claimed that a change of circumstances justifies the reconsideration of an earlier decision, it is open to employers to make representations to that effect, either directly to my officers, or through the representative of the interested Government Department.

Mr. Williams: May I put it to the Minister that in the last few weeks the large number of evacuees, particularly in South Wales, calls for additional man-power; and cannot the right hon. Gentleman reverse the decision of the man-power board without troubling employers or employees to make individual application?

Mr. Bevin: If my hon. Friend followed my answer, he would have seen that if circumstances change it is open to employers to make representations to that effect, either directly to my officers or through the interested Government Department.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Have not the trade unions from time to time made representations to the Department about denuding staffs in retail shops?

Mr. Bevin: That is a different question. I am asked to revise the decision owing to evacuation. Evacuation is a changing factor, and my answer makes it clear that if circumstances change, representations can be made to the man-power board.

Mr. Williams: As we have had these thousands of evacuees in South Wales in the last few weeks, is that not a factor that ought to be taken into consideration now?

Mr. Bevin: I cannot give a general answer applying to the whole country, especially where the circumstances apply only to particular localities.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health whether further consideration can be given to the financial difficulties arising through evacuation; and, in particular, the case of extra grants for those men with relatively low wages whose wives and families have been evacuated and who are involved in substantially heavier commitments because of this.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): I am not satisfied that the existing financial arrangements under the Government evacuation scheme need modification, and I could not adopt the suggestion made in the last part of the Question.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the Minister not think that there may be circumstances of very grave hardship indeed, and in that case the man sometimes has to bring his wife back because he cannot afford to keep up two homes? Could he not make an arrangement to deal with cases of particular hardship?

Mr. Willink: No man requires to keep up two homes in respect of a wife who is evacuated. There is a billeting allowance payable in respect of any such wife. I quite agree there is very great hardship in parting with one's wife.

Mr. E. J. Williams: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will advise local education authorities in the reception areas to continue their feeding arrangements for evacuated child as their own children throughout the holiday period.

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): Yes, Sir. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of an administrative memorandum which was circulated on 1st August to local education authorities asking them to maintain their school feeding arrangements for evacuated children and others during the holidays.

Mr. Lipson: Is the instruction purely permissive or is it compulsory?

Mr. Butler: I will send the hon. Member also a copy of the memorandum, and he will see.

Mr. Pritt: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the special dangers to which permanent invalids, particularly those who have difficulties of movement, are exposed in the areas at present subject to bombing; and whether, seeing that such persons should not in general remain in such areas and that their voluntary evacuation presents especial difficulty, he will classify them as entitled to official evacuation.

Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir. Arrangements are proceeding for the removal from danger areas of a certain number of permanent invalids already in institutional

accommodation. For other infirm and invalid persons, the Government evacuation scheme provides for the issue of travel warrants and billeting certificates if they can arrange for their own accommodation in safer areas. While I have approached the problem with every desire to deal with it sympathetically, I regret that with the resources available I could not hold out hope that it would be possible to undertake the organised evacuation of all the persons to whom this Question relates.

Mr. Pritt: Would the Minister realise that "voluntary evacuation," to people who cannot get voluntary evacuation, means just nothing whatever, and that these people are a great nuisance in times of danger to everybody else and to themselves? In the light of what the Prime Minister said yesterday about evacuation, I hope the Minister will not always say, "No, I cannot."

Mr. Willink: I have not said "No, I cannot." I have indicated that I have moved a considerable number of people in this class. I appreciate the difficulties of permanent invalids and their relations. Many local authorities and friendly persons are endeavouring to find accommodation which would come under the heading of private arrangements. I cannot undertake to find accommodation and care for all invalids in London.

Captain Gammans: Will these arrangements apply to men who have been wounded, especially men who have been discharged from the Forces on account of neurosis?

Mr. Willink: My hon. and gallant Friend asked a Question on that point last week. It applies to all invalids.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: While understanding the great difficulties involved, may I ask whether my right hon. and learned Friend will pay attention to those who are living alone? I understand that he cannot evacuate them, but will he use his good offices to see that they have companionship during raids?

Mr. Willink: That is not an easy matter to organise. Those living alone will mostly be able-bodied people who are capable of looking after themselves. I have set up a panel of an expert character which will deal with those cases in the invalid class in the first priority.

Mr. Pritt: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment in about seven weeks' time.

Homeless Families (Re-housing)

Mr. Guy: asked the Minister of Health whether, in order to rehouse families rendered homeless by recent enemy action, he will consider the immediate erection of Nissen and Army huts on suitable places, in the borough of which he has been informed.

Mr. Willink: It would, in my view, be impracticable to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion as it is imperative to use all available labour and materials in reinstating damaged houses; and other means can be found for rehousing homeless families.

Mr. Guy: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that every day the position is getting worse and that if the Government do not make up their minds quickly there is going to be trouble? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that people have been cooking their dinners outside the street shelters? If that is not sufficient to wake up the Minister then, may I say, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be responsible for what will happen?

Mr. Willink: My hon. Friend can be assured that I am as fully aware of the difficulties as he is.

Mr. Guy: Then do something.

Mr. Willink: The question he has put to me is whether certain temporary buildings should be erected. I am satisfied, after inquiry, that it would not be as good a use of the available labour and materials as the repairing of damaged houses. The Prime Minister informed the House yesterday that more than 600,000 houses damaged in this attack had already been made habitable.

Mr. Sorensen: Is not the Minister aware that huts are not being used in some areas? Could not some of them be made habitable and suitable for accommodation?

Mr. Willink: That is the question which I have already answered.

Heavy Rescue Services (Lighting Equipment)

Mr. Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he

is aware that the Heavy Rescue Services are only provided with one antiquated flare to each station; and will he take immediate steps to see that an adequate supply of modern electric lamps are provided so that life-saving will no longer be handicapped for lack of proper illumination.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I am not aware that life-saving has been handicapped by lack of proper illumination, and it is not the case that only one antiquated flare is available at each depot of the Heavy Rescue Service in London. The service is supplied with acetylene flares, small electric floodlights and larger floodlighting sets for connection to electric main supplies. It also has a call on National Fire Service lighting equipment and portable lighting equipment from other sources. The question of the adequacy of lighting arrangements is carefully watched.

Mr. Robertson: Is it not a fact that the L.C.C. ordered the equipment, but, unfortunately, none of it has been received? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that dance spotlights, car headlamps and other improvised equipment are being used in some cases?

Mr. Morrison: If my hon. Friend has individual cases of difficulty and will let me know, I will look into them, but, if I may say so, he has a slight tendency to make sweeping accusations which are not always well founded.

Mr. Robertson: Arising out of that——

Mr. Speaker: Sir Ronald Ross.

Mr. Robertson: On a point of Order. Has any hon. Member of this House the right to make accusations, such as the right hon. Gentleman has made against me, without giving the House one single instance of what is in his mind?

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear the right hon. Gentleman make an accusation against the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — CARE OF CHILDREN (INSTITUTIONS)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Labour to what extent charitable voluntary organisations responsible for homes and other institutions for the care


of children are obliged to consult representatives of his Ministry or juvenile advisory committees before placing in employment children under their care; whether he is satisfied that there is no exploitation of these children and that their after-care when in work is satisfactory; and whether he will consider empowering juvenile advisory committees or other impartial agencies to supervise the placing of all such juveniles in work and to investigate and supervise the conditions in which such work is carried out.

Mr. Bevin: There is no legal obligation on these organisations to consult my local officers or juvenile advisory committees before placing in employment children under their care except in so far as the engagement of boys and girls under 18 is governed by the Undertakings (Restriction on Engagement) Order which requires all persons entering employment in some of the main war industries to be engaged through the Ministry's local offices. I have no evidence of exploitation of these children. These institutions normally have arrangements for aftercare in varying degrees of detail and, although there may be difficulty in keeping these arrangements up in war-time owing to other calls on the time of voluntary helpers, my present information would not justify me in proposing special action such as is suggested in the last part of the Question.

Mr. Keeling: Would my right hon. Friend consider any proposals that may be made for protecting these defenceless children from unscrupulous employers?

Mr. Bevin: I would consider any proposal to check unscrupulous employers, for both young and old.

Mr. Keeling: ; asked the Minister of Health, how many homes and institutions run by charitable voluntary organisations are subject to inspection by his Ministry; how many inspectors are employed for this purpose; how many visits were paid to these homes and institutions by these inspectors in 1943; how many public assistance homes and institutions include children; and how many children under the age of 17 years they contain.

Mr. Willink: Two hundred and twelve homes and institutions run by charitable voluntary organisations are recognised by my Department as certified schools for

the reception of children sent by public assistance authorities. They are subject to inspection by my inspectors, but I cannot readily state the number of visits paid to them in 1943. These visits are part of the duties of a staff of 45 inspectors who are not specially employed for this purpose. There are 571 homes for children provided by public assistance authorities in England and Wales in addition to 388 institutions, most of which include nurseries, and many of which admit older children for short periods. The total number of children under the age of 16 in receipt of poor-law institutional relief is about 30,000.

Mr. Keeling: Do the inspectors of my right hon. and learned Friend's Department report their visits to him? If so, could he let me have figures?

Mr. Willink: Reports are, of course, made, and are placed in the appropriate files, but the actual number of visits is not really a very important consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Bombed Areas (Priority)

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Minister of Health whether arrangements can be made to ensure that areas that have suffered heavily from enemy action shall receive priority in respect of the supply of emergency houses.

Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir. If the Bill now before the House becomes law, that is the Government's intention.

Road Construction Materials

Mr. J. J. Lawson: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that in Circular 14/44, issued to local authorities in respect to housing, there is no provision for methods of road construction other than by the use of concrete, thus apparently prohibiting the use of tarmacadam and penalising the coal-producing areas; and whether he will make the same arrangements for specifications covering the use of tarmacadam as has been done for concrete and indicate that the method of road construction adopted will be left to the discretion of the local authority.

Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir. On my invitation the Institution of Municipal and County Engineers have kindly undertaken to prepare a model specification for the use of tarmacadam similar to that


prepared for the use of concrete, and when it is available I will issue it to local authorities for their guidance.

Mr. Lawson: Will tarmacadam rank for grant in the same way as concrete?

Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM

Mr. Hutchinson: asked the Minister of Health whether he is in a position to define the attitude of the Government in the matter of local government reform.

Mr. Willink: Various proposals relating to the reform of local government in England and Wales put forward by the local government associations and received from other authoritative sources have been carefully considered. It is clear from these that there is no general desire to disrupt the existing structure of local government or to abandon in favour of some form of regional government the main features of the county and county borough system; and the Government do not consider that any case has been made out for so drastic a change.
On the other hand, the Government are satisfied that within the general framework of the county and county borough system there is need and scope for improvements, and in particular for amending the machinery of the Local Government Act, 1933, relating to adjustments of status, boundaries and areas. Before putting detailed proposals before Parliament I propose to take advantage of the experience and knowledge of the local government associations and for that purpose to open discussions with these bodies as soon as may be. My intention would be, in the light of these discussions, to lay before Parliament a general outline of the Government's proposals before submitting actual legislative measures.

Mr. Hutchinson: While thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for the important statement which he has just made, and which I am sure will be welcomed, may I ask him whether he is able to give the House an indication of the date when it is expected that these consultations to which he has referred are likely to begin?

Mr. Willink: Subject to the convenience of the associations, I shall be ready, and I hope to begin discussions in the course of next month.

Mr. Shinwell: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that his predecessor replied to a similar question by saying "in the Spring" and that he now says "as soon as may be"? Can he give us an idea when that will be?

Mr. Willink: I have indicated that "as soon as may be" will be next month.

Mr. Petherick: Will the Minister have the proposals examined by a Joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament as that is the best body for dealing with such local affairs?

Mr. Willink: I think the time to consider such a suggestion is after I have had the preliminary discussions, the result of which I promise to bring before Parliament.

Mr. Hutchinson: May I put this further point? The Minister is aware, as the House is aware, that, under recent legislation, notably the Education Bill, and under the legislation which is contemplated by his own White Paper proposals, a substantial redistribution of functions among certain authorities is likely to take place. May I ask him whether he can give an assurance that the position of authorities who will be affected by that redistribution, will not be prejudiced in those consultations, or in the subsequent proposals which he will bring before the House?

Mr. Speaker: That is a very long question.

Mr. Willink: I can certainly give that assurance.

Mr. J. J. Lawson: Will the Minister's arrangements give to local authorities and the various associations adequate time to consider any proposals that he may make?

Mr. Willink: On a matter of this importance that will certainly be secured.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

National Health Insurance (Ex-Service-men)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that the National Health Insurance


Scheme is designed only to provide for the payment of benefit in respect of ordinary illnesses and does not at present entitle a discharged soldier to sickness benefit during the six months after the date of removal from duty, and there are numerous cases of pensions relating to partial disability which entail a measure of hardship, he will make the necessary amendments to afford provision to enable ex-Servicemen to receive the necessary benefits.

Mr. Willink: I am glad to be able to inform my hon. Friend that under the war-time powers conferred by Section 8 of the National Health Insurance Act, 1941, regulations have just been made, which provide that as from 1st July, 1944, a person discharged from His Majesty's Forces with a pensionable disability will no longer be liable on that account to a complete loss of National Health Insurance sickness benefit for a period immediately following discharge.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that I am very glad to be able to record that there is something satisfactory about his answer?

Tuberculosis (Allowances)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Health if he has considered the appeal sent to him by 42 patients at Morland Hall Clinic, Alton, on the subject of the exclusion of sufferers from non-pulmonary tuberculosis from the benefits of the new financial allowances; and what reply he has returned thereto.

Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir. I have explained in reply that the scope of the present scheme of allowances is governed by the fact that it has been introduced as a war service under emergency powers, and that this does not enable me to extend it to cases of non-pulmonary tuberculosis, the nature and treatment of which cannot be related to the prosecution of the war effort.

Mr. Driberg: Is it correct that these unfortunate people get only 9s. a week after six months—which is obviously not sufficient, even with public assistance, to maintain their families and cover their own expenses in hospital?

Mr. Willink: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question on the Paper.

Mr. Driberg: Does it not arise out of my original Question?

Mental Nurses (Report)

Mr. Foster: asked the Minister of Health whether he is in a position to make any further statement about the Report of the Mental Nurses Sub-Committee appointed in association with the Nurses Salaries Committee and the action he proposes to take thereon.

Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir, but as the reply is rather long I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Foster: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the report of this Sub-Committee, or the full Committee, will be available to hon. Members, as in reply to a Question last week the Minister said it would be available to-day? It is not in the Vote Office.

Mr. Willink: It will be available to-day in the Vote Office.

Following is the answer:

I have received frmo my noble Friend Lord Rushcliffe the Report of the Mental Nurses Sub-Committee, with an intimation that it has been endorsed by the main Nurses Salaries Committee. The Report deals with nurses in mental hospitals and mental deficiency institutions and nurses employed in wards for patients suffering from mental disorders or mental deficiency in general or other hospitals and public assistance institutions. The Report has been presented as a Command Paper and copies will be available today in the Vote Office. Hon. Members will see from the Report that the work has been detailed and that the Report covers the ground very fully.

I am to-day communicating with local authorities, the British Hospitals Association and the authorities of voluntary institutions concerned, commending to them the recommendations in the Report as to salaries, emoluments and conditions of service, and informing them of the terms of which Exchequer grant will be available to authorities which adopt the recommendations. Hon. Members will join with me in thanking the Committee, the Sub-Committee, and their noble Chairman, and in congratulating them on the successful conclusion of this part of their work. Lord Rushcliffe, who is Chairman of the Nurses' Salaries Committee, acted also as Chairman of the Mental Nurses Sub-Committee, and I am deeply indebted to him for what he has


done over the past three years to promote the success of the Committee and its Sub-Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE

Senior District Wardens (Post-Raid Services)

Mr. Robertson: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that a borough council, of which he has been notified, has rejected the proposal of its civil defence committee that senior wardens should take control of divisional information centres dealing with post-raid services; that the council will not meet again for two months; and will he, therefore, take steps to appoint competent officials to take charge of these centres so that the public will get the services they require and to which they are entitled.

Mr. Willink: I am aware that the council in question did not accept the recommendation of the Civil Defence Control Committee that senior wardens should take control of divisional information centres. I understand that the council took the view that the senior district wardens would already have enough to do in the discharge of their other important duties. I am informed, however, that the council did decide to place each information bureau under the control of an official of the council.

Mr. Robertson: Is it not a fact that, in at least one of the divisions concerned, there has been a serious lack of co-ordination and of supervision of post-raid services? Having regard to the well-known man-power position, in which it is almost impossible to get competent people, will not my right hon. Friend take steps to appoint senior wardens, who have knowledge and experience, and particularly local knowledge?

Mr. Willink: My hon. Friend is aware that I have taken considerable personal interest in the question of co-ordination in the district to which he has referred. These officers were appointed only a comparatively short time ago, and it would be unconstitutional if I should take special powers to appoint the officers of local authorities.

Mr. Robertson: Is it not a fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the

Home Secretary have already done that unconstitutional thing by bringing in a billeting officer from Plymouth and borough engineers from Poplar? If he does not realise his responsibility in the matter, may I assure him that the people do?

Nurses (Fireguard Duties)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the strain imposed on nurses and the effect on the nursing of patients through nurses being expected to do fire-watching duties; and whether, in view of their arduous duties and long hours of service, he will exempt nurses from fire-watching.

Mr. H. Morrison: Whole-time nurses are exempted from street fire party duties. As regards fireguard duties at hospitals or other business premises where they work, nurses are eligible for exemption in the same way as women employed in industry. The appropriate authority responsible for fireguard arrangements at the premises has discretion to direct that any woman who works there for exceptionally long hours shall be exempted wholly or partly from such duties.

Mr. Sorensen: In the case of those nurses working long hours, who have no organisation which can appeal for them, what action can they take to prevent undue hardship, not only for themselves, but for others?

Mr. Morrison: They should apply to the appropriate authority. There is well-recognised machinery for that purpose.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that, in many parts of the country, there are people regularly fire-watching where there has never been a bomb and where there is never likely to be one; and is it not possible that their services could be organised in such a way as to provide relief for London?

Mr. Morrison: There has been a great deal of relaxation in various parts of the country. Indeed, there has never been universal compulsory fire-watching, but we must be ready for things that are possible. One of the troubles is that of areas which, never having had a bomb, think they never will, and are not ready for them.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1929

Mr. Loftus: asked the Minister of Health if he will consider suspending for the duration of the war under Defence Regulations paragraph 14 of the Eighth Schedule of the Local Government Act, 1933.

Mr. Willink: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to paragraph 14 of the Eighth Schedule to the Local Government Act, 1929. I am advised that legislation would be required to effect the object which he has in view, and I do not think that I should be justified in putting before Parliament a proposal for this purpose.

Mr. Loftus: Would not the suspension of this Regulation lead to the more efficient utilisation of the services of retired civil servants?

Mr. Willink: This matter refers not to civil servants but to local government servants. It has been discussed in this House in relation to civil servants. I do not think this inducement is necessary in time of war.

Oral Answers to Questions — CITY OF LONDON (REPLANNING)

Mr. Hugh Lawson: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning if he is aware that the plans prepared by the Court of Common Council for the rebuilding of the City of London will perpetuate much of the present bad layout; and what steps he proposes to take to see that the City is redeveloped in accorddance with the best town-planning practice.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Henry Strauss): The plan to which the hon. Member refers has been prepared by the Improvements and Town Planning Committee of the City Corporation. The proposals are tentative, and I understand that the Committee will receive and consider comments and criticism before reporting again to the City Corporation. My right hon. Friend is now studying the proposals and will in due course let the Corporation have his comments and suggestions.

Mr. Lawson: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the replanning of the City of London is a national matter, and not just a local matter for the City itself?

Mr. Strauss: We shall certainly keep that in mind.

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning the present position with regard to the views of the Royal Fine Art Commission concerning the new plan for the City of London put forward by the Corporation; and whether he will give an assurance that approval will not be given to this until the Report of the Commission is received.

Mr. H. Strauss: I understand that the tentative plan recently published is being considered by the Royal Fine Art Commission and that the City Corporation hope to have the benefit of their advice in due course. My Right Honourable Friend will also consult the Commission in the course of his examination of the plan.

Mr. Mander: Does the hon. Gentleman know whether the Royal Fine Art Commission has formed any provisional conclusions about the plans, and why the City of London did not wait until they got the benefit of its excellent advice?

Mr. Strauss: I think that there has been some correspondence between the Corporation and the Commission, but I cannot add to my answer. I am not aware that there are any grounds for the hon. Member's suspicions.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Can my hon. Friend say what are the terms of reference of the Commission in a matter of this nature, and what sort of advice is asked from them?

Mr. Strauss: I could not possibly restate the terms of reference without notice, but I think they are wide enough to enable the Commission to comment fully on the plans which are submitted to them.

Mr. De la Bère: Will my hon. Friend separate the true from the false and the real from the unreal?

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND GRANTS

Mr. Douglas: asked the Minister of Pensions what are the diseases which are regarded by him as not caused or aggravated by war service; and what are the respective causes giving rise to such diseases.

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) on 29th July, 1943, a copy of which I am sending him, and to my remarks on this subject in the course of the Debate on the 25th July last.
As to the second part of the Question, my hon. Friend will doubtless be aware that in the majority of these diseases the cause is still the subject of medical research.

Mr. Lipson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give further consideration to this matter?

Mr. Thomas Fraser: asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that a disabled ex-Service man may be disallowed supplementation for unemployability even though he is so seriously disabled by his pensionable disablement as to be unemployable for a period of years; and what steps he proposes to take to remove this anomaly.

Sir W. Womersley: As I recently announced, a new provision has been introduced to meet the case of the married man who, though he cannot and in his own interest should not, be regarded as unemployable is nevertheless likely after a course of hospital treatment to be unfit for work for a lengthy period because of his pensionable disability. Such a man, in addition to a treatment allowance equivalent to pension for total disablement and allowances for his wife and family, will receive a supplementary allowance of 9s. a week if he is not eligible for National Health Insurance benefit.

Mr. Fraser: Surely the Minister is aware that there are still many cases of men who are unemployable because of their pensionable disability who are not admissible for general social service schemes and who still are not covered? Was not the answer the right hon. Gentleman gave me last week to the effect that if ever it was believed a man would be fit for employment again, he could not draw this grant?

Sir W. Womersley: I am afraid my hon. Friend is confusing two issues. By the Royal Warrant I have to award a supplementary allowance to a man who is declared to be totally unemployable by reason of his pensionable disability. That

I am doing. The other point is that where a man is not going to be permanently disabled by reason of his pensionable disability, but is not likely to be employable for some time, under these new arrangements I have now made, I can make this supplementary allowance.

Mr. Fraser: If a man has been discharged for three years, and been unemployable for three years, and he is still unemployable, the Minister in reply to me—taking up a case individually—could only say that ultimately he would be employable. Surely that case should be covered?

Sir W. Womersley: It is difficult to generalise on a particular case. If my hon. Friend will call my attention to the case he has in mind, I will look into it.

Mr. Foster: What period has to elapse before the man in a case of this kind is considered to be totally unemployable? Is there any period?

Sir W. Womersley: No, the method is first to have a medical opinion. If the medical opinion is that a man is not likely to be employable, he is admitted for extra benefit. If the medical opinion is that after a course of treatment the man will be able to resume work, we deal with that under the new arrangement I have announced. If, after that, he is handed over to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to go to a training centre, and it is decided by the officials in charge there that he is not likely, even after training, to be employable, we admit that. I can assure hon. Members we do everything we possibly can to meet these cases.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether cases in this category now have to make application to have this benefit?

Sir W. Womersley: If we know of them we deal with them, without application; but there will be cases of which we do not know, and we welcome applications being made. I can assure the House that we shall deal with them sympathetically.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Pensions how many children there are who have lost their fathers in war service, who are receiving the allowance of 11s per week; and what is the estimated annual cost if they were placed on the same basis as other children, who are getting 12s. 6d. a week.

Sir W. Womersley: Somewhat over 70,000 children are at present in receipt of allowances at the 11s. a week rate. The immediate annual cost of raising this rate of 12s. 6d. would be about £275,000.

Mr. De la Bère: Then why not do it?

Oral Answers to Questions — DISCHARGED SERVICE MEN (MENTAL CASES)

Mr. Foster: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding mental cases discharged from the Services without pension who are being maintained in mental hospitals by relatives or local authorities.

Sir W. Womersley: Mental patients discharged from the Services in the present war, whose condition is not attributable to their service, and who require institutional treatment for more than six months after discharge, are entitled in common with other patients of unsound mind to treatment in mental hospitals administered by local authorities. The Government would strongly deprecate any suggestion that the treatment so provided is not fully satisfactory or that under modern conditions such patients have a status inferior to that of other patients in local authority hospitals.

Mr. Foster: Is the Minister aware that the reply just given is not an answer to the Question, and that in reply to questions which have been put previously, and in reply to a speech which
I made in the war pensions Debate, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry undertook to give consideration to this matter and to make an early statement to the House as to what the Minister was prepared to do?

Sir W. Womersley: It is not really a question for me to answer, except as a courtesy to my hon. Friend, because the matter was taken entirely out of the hands of the Ministry of Pensions in 1924, and handed over to the Board of Control. I undertook to make inquiries from the Board of Control and to ascertain what the Government decision on this matter was, and I have given it in this answer.

Mr. Guy: Is it not a fact that the Board of Control and local authorities are pressing the Minister to accept these cases as Service cases?

Sir W. Womersley: No, Sir, not the Board of Control. One authority representing the Lancashire County Council have done so. That is all I have had up to now.

Mr. Foster: Am I to understand from the reply the right hon. Gentleman has given that the Government have decided that no action is to be taken in these cases to recognise these cases, as was done in the last war?

Sir W. Womersley: Yes, that is right.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA

Civil Servants (Pensions)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for India what report he can make on steps taken by the Government of India to improve the pensions of retired Indian civil servants.

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): The Government of India are considering, in consultation with Provincial Governments, the application to small pensioners residing out of India of increases comparable with those granted to similar pensioners under the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1944, and hope to obtain general agreement.

"Bombay Sentinel" (Suppression)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India the reason for the suppression of the "Bombay Sentinel"; and how many journals and newspapers have been suppressed or suspended since the beginning of the war.

Mr. Amery: I understand that the "Bombay Sentinel" was suppressed last April as the result of action contrary to the restrictions imposed by the Government of Bombay, for security reasons, on the dissemination of news relating to the Bombay explosion of 14th April. The order suppressing the paper was cancelled by the Government of Bombay on 20th April, on the receipt of satisfactory assurances for the future. I have not the information needed to answer the latter part of the Question.

Mr. Sorensen: Would it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to get some approximate figure by the time we meet again, in seven weeks, as to the number of journals and newspapers that have been suspended?

Mr. Amery: It would involve a great deal of work, inquiring of all the provincial authorities as to what they may have done over the last five years.

Oral Answers to Questions — BURMA (WAR DAMAGE)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for Burma whether the Government have given, or can give, any undertaking that property and goods destroyed or damaged in Burma as a result of the Japanese invasion will be replaced or repaired, so far as possible; and that if the resources of Burma are insufficient, His Majesty's Government will give what assistance they can.

The Secretary of State for Burma (Mr. Amery): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) on 28th February, 1943.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOUBLE SUMMER TIME (PROLONGATION)

Sir Reginald Clarry: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the removal of the extra hour of summer time on 13th August conflicting, amongst other things, with the holidays with pay period, he will consider either extending the period of the extra hours of Summer Time or relaxing the present total black-out arrangements.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any statement to make in regard to the extra hour of daylight and, in connection therewith, about the black-out regulations.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): His Majesty's Government have given the most careful consideration to the question whether Double Summer Time should be prolonged after 13th August, and whether some relaxation of the black-out could be made. As regards Double Summer Time, when, on 24th February last, I announced the Government's decision, I said that, but for agricultural considerations, there would have been a case this year for extending the period beyond the middle of August. Since this decision was announced new factors have arisen,

which have caused His Majesty's Government to re-open the question. These factors are the operational needs of the Armed Forces invading the Continent and the problems created by the flying bomb. Having weighed the arguments for and against the continuance of Double Summer Time, and having given the most sympathetic consideration to the difficulties of the agricultural community, the Government have come to the conclusion that, on balance, the national interests require the extension of Double Summer Time to the morning of Sunday, 17th September, and a Defence Regulation for the purpose will be made as soon as possible. I should like just to add that the Government fully sympathise with the difficulties of the agricultural community, and regret that it should be necessary to add to their problems under present conditions. For their part, the Government will do everything they can to help in the provision of additional labour for the harvest, as far as this is practicable, and to give every encouragement to further volunteers to come forward to assist with it. Persons who volunteer for this purpose will be doing a most important national service, and it is hoped that hon. Members will take any opportunity which arises of making this as widely known as possible. As regard the black-out, the Government are anxious that it should be relaxed, or removed, as soon as the interests of national safety permit. All the relevant considerations have again been carefully reviewed, but the Government have come to the conclusion that it would not be desirable to lift the blackout at the present time. The question will, however, be reviewed again.

Colonel Sir George Courthope: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this proposed extension of Double Summer Time will greatly increase the difficulty of harvest and the risk that some of our crops will not be gathered? I hope, therefore, that the steps the Government will take to provide additional labour will be taken promptly, and that they will not wait until it is too late for them to be of any use.

Mr. Morrison: I accept entirely what my right hon. and gallant Friend has said about the added difficulties that this will involve for agriculture. I have given full weight to agricultural considerations


but I think that these further considerations now turn the balance. Nevertheless, I appreciate the difficulties, and I assure my right hon. and gallant Friend that the Government will do everything that they can to help the agricultural community to meet the undoubted added difficulties.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: In considering the question of the black-out regulations, will my right hon. Friend consider not only the military risks, but the fact that our people have made up their minds that the disadvantages of the black-out outweigh its advantages?

Mr. Morrison: If my hon. Friend is so confident about the feelings of the people at this end of the country, I do not share his confidence. I do not know what the feeling is, and I would not dogmatise about it. Everything that my hon. Friend has mentioned is taken into account. We will review the matter again, and if we can relax the black-out, we shall be delighted to do so.

Mr. Thorne: Would there be any danger about having the black-out only when the warning is given?

Mr. Morrison: There are difficulties about that.

Mr. Edgar Granville: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in East Anglia agriculturists have always regarded Double Summer Time as foreign time and that they call the old time real time, and that his statement will make no difference to the position there?

Mr. Morrison: That comforts me very much.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS)

Mr. Bartle Bull: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is yet in a position to state when the Government propose to introduce legislation giving effect to the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference on the subject of Redistribution of Parliamentary Seats.

Mr. H. Morrison: Notice of introduction of a Bill on this subject has been given to-day. It may be some little time before the Bill will be ready for circulation, but I hope that it may prove practicable to

circulate it for the information of Members before the House resumes after the Recess.

Mr. Bull: Can my right hon. Friend indicate that this will be got on with quickly after the Recess, so that when election time comes all parties can have their candidates adopted, and not be forced to make mistakes through hasty decisions?

Mr. Morrison: That relates to the Business of the House, for which the Leader of the House is responsible. But I can assure my hon. Friend that I am very anxious to get the Bill through as quickly as possible.

Sir Richard Acland: Will this be a comprehensive Bill, dealing with all the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference, or will it be just a Bill dealing with one point, to be followed by other Bills dealing with other points?

Mr. Morrison: It will be a Bill dealing with redistribution only.

Mr. Mander: Is it intended to pass the Bill into law before there is a General Election?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE (REGISTER)

Sir R. Acland: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, approximately, the relation between the number of election registration forms received by the Central Registrars Department from the three Fighting Services, and the number of men and women eligible to register in these three Services.

Mr. H. Morrison: I shall be glad, at a later date, to consider how far information can be given on this point, but at present the number of counterparts received by the Central National Registration Office does not show how many Service declarations have reached electoral registration officers, since many such officers have not yet been able to carry through the work required to be done before the counterparts can be completed and transmitted to the Central Office. This work is less urgent than other electoral registration work, because delay in transmitting the counterpart does not affect the Service voter's right to be placed on the electoral


register. That right is assured as soon as a valid declaration reaches the electoral registration officer.

Sir R. Acland: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to be in a position to give a more definite answer to the Question when we meet again, after the brief Recess?

Mr. Morrison: I am not at all sure. It is a choice between setting labour to work in collecting statistics, and letting the same labour get on with the job. That is the dilemma I am in.

Sir R. Acland: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the 600 separate registration officers how many they have received, because this is the only way of getting a global figure of the whole thing? The Service Ministers will not tell us.

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Member must not use me to get round the Service Ministers, by outflanking them. I will consider the point, but I think it would not be possible at this stage, anyway.

Mr. Hugh Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of electoral registration forms received by registration officers from the Forces are incorrectly filled in and result in the applicant not having his or her name placed on the register; and what steps are taken to inform the applicant that the application is invalid.

Mr. H. Morrison: Defective declarations are returned through the appropriate channels with an indication of the defect for the purpose of giving the person who made the declaration an opportunity to make a new one. I am not at this stage in a position to give figures, but I understand that a proportion of the declarations received have been found to be defective, and that the Army Council are in the course of issuing a supplementary instruction calling attention to those defects which are more frequently found.

Mr. Lawson: Does the same thing apply to defective proxies? The registration may be all right, but the proxy might be defective. Are these sent back also?

Mr. Morrison: Now my hon. Friend is drawing me into a sphere which is the responsibility of a Service Minister. The

hon. Member's question to me is perfectly proper, but it is on another subject. I cannot answer for each Service Minister's administration.

Mr. Hugh Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members of the Forces have now been registered as Parliamentary electors as a result of the distribution of forms to the Services; and if he is satisfied that the present staff of electoral registration officers is adequate to deal with these forms as soon as they are received and to keep records of the numbers of those registering.

Mr. H. Morrison: In my reply of 8th June to a similar Question by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Oxford (Mr. Hogg) I explained the reason for not calling on electoral registration officers to make special returns giving these figures at the present time. As soon as a valid declaration is received by the electoral registration officer the Service voter becomes qualified to be placed on the electoral register, and I have no reason to doubt that despite staffing difficulties the electoral registration officers will keep the records in such a state that whenever an election is initiated a register of the Service voters entitled to vote in the constituency can be produced.

Mr. Lipson: When the right hon. Gentleman has these figures, if he finds they are not very satisfactory, will he consider the question of automatic registration?

Mr. Morrison: I had better not say anything about that at present.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the new electoral register will be available for use.

Mr. H. Morrison: I hope that it may be possible to operate the new electoral arrangements from 1st October, or shortly thereafter, but in present conditions I cannot be certain.

Mr. Mander: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is intended that pending by-elections shall be held on the new register?

Mr. Morrison: I doubt whether they can; it depends on when the Writ is moved.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRAVEL PERMITS

Sir Ronald Ross: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) in view of the fact that the present suspension of exit permits to Northern Ireland is imposed for security reasons, why evacuees from Gibraltar are given preference over residents in Northern Ireland who are refused permits to go to their homes;
(2) whether residents in Northern Ireland, now situated in areas in England, subjected to air attack and not engaged in essential war work, will be granted exit permits to return to their homes.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now prepared to withdraw the restrictions on overseas travel and on travel between Great Britain and Ireland.

Major Procter: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he will reconsider his decision not to allow widows of Service men killed on active service to return to their homes in Ireland, in view of the suffering caused in cases of this kind;
(2) whether he will reconsider his decision not to allow Service wives, unless they come within the priority classes, to travel to Ireland to live with relations when their husbands go abroad, in view of the suffering caused in many instances.

Mr. H. Morrison: As the House knows, the restrictions on overseas travel, and on travel between Great Britain and Ireland, were imposed for military reasons, and I am advised that the time has not yet come when they could be withdrawn without prejudice to military operations. At the same time, His Majesty's Government are aware that these restrictions have imposed considerable hardship and inconvenience and, with a view to mitigating such hardship, I am prepared to consider applications for travel facilities in the following limited classes of cases. As regards overseas travel, I am prepared to consider applications from wives of persons permanently stationed overseas and persons returning to their homes within the Empire or Allied countries. As regards travel between Great Britain and Ireland, I am prepared to consider applications from persons who

desire to visit their homes in either country as the case may be, and leave certificates may be issued for this purpose. Of course, in any case, an application will be refused if there is any security or other cogent objection to the proposed journey. It will in future be necessary for intending travellers between this country and Ireland to obtain a sailing ticket from the railway or shipping company before applying for an exit permit or a leave certificate.

Sir R. Ross: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, if his grounds are those of security, whether Gibraltarian evacuees are considered to be more discreet than residents of Northern Ireland who are trying to get back to their homes?

Mr. Morrison: We had a problem in London, as my hon. and gallant Friend may know, in connection with the flying bomb, of housing all sorts of people, including workpeople who have been brought into London on housing repairs. The Northern Ireland Government very kindly and very patriotically agreed to receive the Gibraltarians—who will, in due course, go back to Gibraltar—in order to relieve the situation in London, and I am very grateful to the Northern Ireland Government for their help.

Sir R. Ross: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman be as sympathetic to the difficulties of Northern Ireland people trying to get back to their homes as he is to his own difficulties?

Mr. Morrison: On balance, the problem of the Gibraltarians was the more important.

Oral Answers to Questions — TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS (ADVISORY COUNCIL)

Mr. J. J. Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now announce the composition of his proposed Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders.

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir, and I am glad to be able to tell the House that I have been fortunate in obtaining the services of Mr. Justice Birkett as chairman of the Council. I am circulating the full list of members in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and it will be seen that, in addition to persons with specialised knowledge of the subjects with which the Council will deal, I have, as I told the


House was my intention, included men and women with other outlooks who will bring to the human problems confronting the council experience gained in varied walks of life.

Mr. Gallacher: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered my suggestion that an offender who has later on made good should be included in the Council?

Mr. Morrison: I did consider it. It was not without its attraction, but I have not been able to find a suitable offender.

Following is the information:

Oral Answers to Questions — ADVISORY COUNCIL ON THE TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS

Terms of Reference:

To be a Council to assist the Home Secretary with advice and suggestions on questions relating to the treatment of offenders.

Membership:

The Hon. Mr. Justice Birkett (Chairman).
Sir Alexander Maxwell, K.C.B., K.B.E. (Vice-Chairman).
The Lady Allen of Hurtwood.
Dame Lilian Barker, D.B.E.
George Benson, Esq., M.P.
The Right Reverend The Bishop of Bristol, M.C., D.D.
G. Clutton Brock, Esq.
Harold Clay, Esq.
Geoffrey Crowther, Esq.
Mrs. Walter Elliot.
Miss Margery Fry.
The Hon. Lady Inskip.
W. C. Johnson, Esq., O.B.E.
Mrs. A. Creech Jones.
Professor H. J. Laski.
J. Lees-Jones, Esq., M.P.
Dr. W. S. Macdonald, M.C.
Leo Page, Esq.
Miss L. M. Rendel.
Councillor R. G. Robinson.
H. W. Shawcross, Esq., K.C.

The Secretaries of the Council will be Miss W. M. Goode and Mr. Francis Graham-Harrison, of the Home Office.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE

Mr. Hynd: asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will provide the House with an early opportunity of

discussing the Report of the Inter-allied Committee on the Future of the Permanent Court of International Justice, Cmd. 6531.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The future of the Permanent Court of International Justice is intimately bound up with the forthcoming Four Power discussions on World Organisation. These are due to begin in Washington on 14th August. In these circumstances it would be well to postpone any public discussion of the valuable Report of the Inter-Allied Committee for the time being.

Oral Answers to Questions — OPERATIONS, ITALY (ITALIAN PATRIOTS)

Mr. Hynd: asked the Prime Minister whether any official cognisance is being taken of the contribution being made to the allied victories in Italy by the Italian partisan troops and workers as revealed in the communiques of General Alexander; and whether the Government has any announcement to make in acknowledgment of the heroism and sacrifice of these Italian Allies.

Mr. Attlee: Yes, Sir, His Majesty's Government are well aware of the appreciable aid rendered to the operations of the Allied Armies by the patriots in the parts of Italy still occupied by the enemy. They are also aware of the impediments placed by patriotic Italian workers in the way of German exploitation of Italian war industry.

Mr. Hynd: In view of the wide extent of these activities—and I understand that there are 300,000 of these patriots now fighting—will the right hon. Gentleman inform us whether it is the case that any suggestions have been made to the Press in this country that reports of their activities should be damped down?

Mr. Attlee: I am afraid that is hardly a question for me. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put it to the appropriate Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEPARTMENT OF OVERSEAS TRADE

Sir P. Hannon: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the functions to be discharged by the Department of Overseas Trade in fulfil-


ment of the duties imposed on the Board of Trade as indicated in the White Paper on Full Employment.

Mr. Attlee: As the White Paper emphasises, a great expansion of our export trade is essential to the success of the policy outlined. The functions of the Department of Overseas Trade, working in the closest collaboration with the Board of Trade, will be to assist the efforts of our exporters in recovering old markets and winning new ones.

Sir P. Hannon: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the present administration at the Department of Overseas Trade, and does he contemplate making any change in that direction?

Mr. Attlee: That is hardly a question for me.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is really very important for the future of our export trade that the different branches which are to be controlled by the two Departments—the Board of Trade and the Department of Overseas Trade—should be clearly marked in advance, so that industrialists will know to whom to go?

Mr. Attlee: I agree that that is important, and as I understand it, my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade is in very close contact with the Board of Trade.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Is the Deputy-Prime Minister aware that the present staff of the Department of Overseas Trade is much too large for its present functions but much too small for the functions proposed here, and that the same remark applies to the Minister?

Oral Answers to Questions — SMITHY FACILITIES, BLETCHLEY

Mr. Lionel Berry: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is satisfied that adequate facilities exist in the Bletchley area for repairing tractors and shoeing horses in view of the fact that virtually the only service now available is provided by two Italian prisoners.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I am aware of the difficulties in the area to which my hon. Friend refers and am making inquiries to ascertain whether any further action can be taken

to improve the position. I will write to my hon. Friend on the matter as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — PILCHARD FISHING INDUSTRY

Mr. Petherick: asked the Minister of Agriculture what action, similar to the Herring Industry Bill, he proposes to take to aid the pilchard fishing industry after the war.

Mr. Hudson: The importance of the pilchard fishing industry will not be overlooked in connection with the rehabilitation of inshore fisheries, which is now receiving my close attention.

Mr. Petherick: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he has anything specific in his mind in relation to the pilchard industry and its future?

Mr. Hudson: I have said that the whole question of inshore fisheries is receiving my consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCHOOLS, LONDON AREA

Mr. Hutchinson: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware of the proposal of the L.C.C. to establish multilateral secondary schools of 2,000 pupils each; and whether this proposal has his approval.

Mr. Butler: I have seen references to the matter in the Press. Under the provisions of the Education Bill it will be the duty of the London County Council, as of other authorities, to prepare and submit to the Minister a development plan for primary and secondary schools in their area, and the question of the Minister's approval will not arise until that stage is reached. Variety to meet local conditions is one of the keynotes of the Bill, but there are certain general considerations which all authorities would be well advised to bear in mind. I propose, therefore, to issue shortly general guidance on various aspects of primary and secondary education, including the organisation of secondary education.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX (HOUSEKEEPER ALLOWANCE)

Mr. Glanville: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the case of a woman, not a relative, being engaged


as housekeeper in the home with a bedridden wife, the husband can obtain an allowance for her wages under Income Tax regulations.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): The housekeeper allowance of £50 would be admissible in the circumstances envisaged by my hon. Friend if a resident housekeeper, whether a relative of the taxpayer or not, was maintained or employed to look after a child or children for whom the taxpayer is entitled to relief from Income Tax, but if there were no young children to be looked after the housekeeper allowance would not be available.

Mr. Glanville: Would not the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider altering this regulation in order to bring within its scope the husband of a bedridden wife who has to have a housekeeper?

Sir J. Anderson: I can only point out to the hon. Member that this matter was discussed very fully indeed in the Committee stage on the Finance Bill this year.

Sir H. Williams: Is the Chancellor aware that I twice requested his predecessor to make this change, and that he was always most hard-hearted?

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the increasing interest shown by the House in Questions to the President of the Board of Trade and to the Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade, may I ask you whether you would look into the possibility of giving these Ministers an early place on the Order Paper on one day in each week?

Mr. Speaker: They do come in rotation.

Oral Answers to Questions — STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS (MAGISTRATE'S DECISION)

Mr. Molson: (By Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the refusal of certain magistrates to try a case unless assurance were given that certain Regulations had been laid before Parliament, he will circularise all magistrates informing them that they are not entitled to investigate the procedure under

which legislation or delegated legislation has been enacted and published.

Mr. H. Morrison: It is not for me to correct a bench of magistrates on a question of law, but I recognise that it is in the public interest that a statement should be made on this point, which is made clear by the Documentary Evidence Act of 1868. I am advised that the effect of that Act is that the production of a Statutory Rule and Order purporting to be printed by the Government printer is prima facie evidence of the Order, and that a Court is not entitled to require any further evidence unless, of course, the defendant should be able to prove by affirmative evidence that the Order is invalid. Failure to understand this somewhat elementary legal principle is, I am sure, exceptional, and I do not think that a general circular to magistrates is called for.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: Is not a special circular to this particular magistrate necessary in view of the fact that he has said:
As they make such a muck of things up there, we should ask in every one of these cases, whether the laws have been laid before the Government"?

Mr. Morrison: I think there is little doubt that the magistrate will see the report of my statement, and in all the circumstances of the case I doubt whether I had better enter into individual and direct controversy with him.

Mr. Pritt: Would the Home Secretary consider, in the light of things like this, which are often happening, whether some steps should be taken to give elementary teaching in law to the magistrates?

Sir Reginald Blair: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House should show a little deference to this particular magistrate—who is learned in the law—on account of the fact that he has suffered a great personal bereavement?

Mr. Morrison: I am very sorry about that.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the Business to be taken after the Adjournment?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): Yes, Sir. In the first week after the Summer Recess, supposing that the date agreed to has not been altered in the meantime, the Business will be:
Tuesday, 26th September—Conclusion of the adjourned Debate on the Second Reading of the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Bill, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution. Committee and remaining stages of the Housing (Scotland) Bill.
Wednesday, 27th September—Committee stage of the Town and Country Planning Money Resolution; Second Reading of the India (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [Lords] and of the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Bill [Lords.]
Thursday, 28th September—Committee stage of the Town and Country Planning Bill.
Friday, 29th September—Committee and remaining stages of the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Bill and, if there is time, further progress will be made with the India (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [Lords] and the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Bill [Lords.]

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask my right hon. Friend for information on two points? I understand the Chancellor is laying a White Paper on the full text of the Bretton Woods Monetary Conference. If that is correct, do the Government intend to have an early Debate? Secondly, what are the Government's intentions about a Debate on the subject of shipping and shipbuilding?

Mr. Eden: I will take, first, the second question, about shipping and shipbuilding. That is one of the subjects we have noted for a Debate when we come back, before the end of the Session. With regard to my hon. Friend's first question, the White Paper is being laid to-day and I have it in mind that we should have an early discussion after we come back.

Miss Ward: Arising out of that reply, is my right hon. Friend aware that information about the United States proposals for the conference have already been given to certain members of Congress? Will he be in a position to inform hon. Members of this House at a very early date the details of our plans that are being discussed?

Mr. Eden: I think the hon. Lady is on another point. I do not think she is referring to the Bretton Woods Conference but to the meeting on international organisation which is to take place shortly.

Miss Ward: Yes, Sir, I did not quite hear what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. Eden: That is another point. Of course, as I explained to the House this is a meeting on the official level which will not commit the Government. I do not know what Mr. Hull may have said to Congress but our course is quite clear, and the hon. Member may be assured that we shall take the necessary steps in order to carry the House with us in any proposals that are made.

Miss Ward: May we have an early discussion on the World Security Conference, because that is equally important?

Mr. Eden: As I have said, these people have not yet met. I think we must let them meet first.

Sir H. Williams: Could I ask my right hon. Friend what Minister will reply to The continued Debate on the emergency houses, because both the Ministers concerned have exhausted their right of speech? Secondly, when will the Second Reading of the Redistribution Bill take place? Thirdly, is he aware that there may be some prolonged discussion on the Extension of Diplomatic Privileges Bill?

Mr. Eden: As regards the first question, I understand the Secretary of State for Scotland will reply. As regards the second, I am not at the moment looking into Business beyond the first week. As regards the third, I regret and deplore that my hon. Friend is probably right.

Mr. Tinker: The Prime Minister said a White Paper would be published during the Recess on the Beveridge plan for social reform; will that promise be carried out? If so, may we expect a Debate upon it after we return?

Mr. Eden: We do anticipate a Debate during the present Session.

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great dissatisfaction that is felt at the fact that the Government have not been able, after three months, to set up a Royal Commission on Equal Pay?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a question on Business.

Mr. Gallacher: I understand that we are to discuss the Housing Bill on Tuesday and at the tail end of the discussion take the Scottish Bill. May I ask my right hon. Friend not to carry on this practice but to set in motion the Scottish Grand Committee once again, so that it can take the Committee stage of the Scottish Bill?

Mr. Eden: We did give the matter careful consideration and we thought this was a satisfactory arrangement. There has already been discussion on the Second Reading, and we did not think there would be great difficulty on the Committee and remaining stages.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Will my right hon. Friend consider in the next series of Sittings giving time for a discussion on overseas trade? One realises that it has taken second place to other considerations for some time, but in view of the turn which events are taking, would my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of such a discussion?

Mr. Eden: That is a suggestion which has not been made before, but owing to the importance of the subject, it is clearly one which must take its place in the list.

Mr. Cocks: The Leader of the House said that one of the Committee days would be devoted to the Town and Country Planning Bill; will it be the first day of the Committee stage?

Mr. Eden: I fear my hon. Friend's conclusion is probably correct.

Sir Richard Acland: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that when we resume it may be really urgent to have an early discussion on the question of Service voting and registration?

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is it possible for facilities to be given to discuss the broadcast of the Governor of the Bank of England on 27th July, which was extremely misleading to the public?

Mr. Eden: I much regret that I have not the remotest idea of what was said.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: I will send the right hon. Gentleman a copy.

DIVISION LIST (CORRECTION)

Mr. Shinwell: Mr. Speaker, may I direct your attention to a serious omission that has occurred in the OFFICIAL REPORT? In the voting list on the Debate on the main Question yesterday, I find that the numbers of the "Noes" are given as 26, but in the list only 14 names appear. Twelve names are omitted. This is a somewhat serious blunder, and I should like to know from you who is responsible for this error and whether there is any redress. Will any public statement be made so as to assure those who were interested that 12 Members, other than those whose names appear here, also voted for a three-weeks Recess instead of seven weeks?

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member for drawing my attention to the omission. I confess I had not noticed it myself. Of course, it will appear now as an Erratum in to-day's HANSARD. I am informed that it is correct in the Blue Paper. HANSARD is really unofficial so far as Division lists are concerned, but I will see that the omission is corrected in the bound volume.

Mr. Gallacher: There is not only the question that the hon. Member's 12 disciples are missing, but in the same HANSARD there are some very bad misprints. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."]—and I think a special examination should be made.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members often do not speak up, and it is difficult for reporters to hear them.

SECRET SESSION DEBATES

Captain Cunningham- Reid: Mr. Speaker, you have been good enough to indicate that you will give an answer to the following question of Procedure. From the point of view of Privilege and repetition, would it be in Order to discuss a subject, and to use arguments in public Debate, that had previously, in the same Session, been used in Secret Debate?

Mr. Speaker: A matter which has been decided in Secret Session cannot be discussed again, whether in Secret Session or in open Session. It is, in fact, the ordinary Rule which prohibits re-opening in the same Session a question which has once been decided. A matter which has


been debated but not decided in Secret Session may be debated again in open Session, provided there is no allusion to proceedings in Secret Session, and no disclosure of information acquired in Secret Session. If any such disclosure should take place, it is for the Leader of the House and not for myself to take action upon it as a breach of Privilege. A question which has thus been debated in Secret Session is not, thereby, what may be called permanently sterilised, but, obviously, much depends on the nature and scope of the question.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: As a result of your answer, Sir, under certain circumstances, would you not be rather at a disadvantage in bringing a Member to Order who was repeating in Public Session something he had said in Secret Session? Would you not then yourself be guilty of disclosing something that had taken place in Secret Session?

Mr. Speaker: I notice the nice conundrum which the hon. and gallant Member sets me, but it is really for the House to say there has been a breach of Privilege. I fancy my attention would have to be drawn to the fact that an hon. Member was disclosing something that had been said in Secret Session, and, therefore, the conundrum to myself might not, I hope, arise.

NATIONAL FIRE SERVICES REGULATIONS (INDEMNITY) BILL

Petty-Officer Alan Herbert: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a point of procedure which has only just come to my notice? Two days ago I ventured to draw attention to an important and grave grammatical error in the National Fire Services Regulations (Indemnity) Bill and I stated that I would put down an Amendment. The Attorney-General, on looking into the matter, said he thought I was right and that he would deal with the matter in another place. Thereafter the Home Secretary and his gallant assistant and the Attorney-General came to me and assured me that I was right. What is my astonishment when I look at the report of the proceedings in another place to see that the point was never raised and that the Bill has gone through all its stages with one more ghastly illiteracy added to the Statute Book? I should

like to ask what remedy there is for that, and also what faith can be put in the assurances of Ministers.

Mr. Speaker: The matter has left this House and it is quite beyond our control.

Petty-Officer Herbert: Would an amending Statute be possible?

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS

That they have agreed to—

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, without Amendment.

BILL PRESENTED

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) BILL

"to make temporary provision for the division of abnormally large constituencies, and permanent provision for the redistribution of seats at parliamentary elections"; presented by Mr. Herbert Morrison, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Attlee, Sir Archibald Sinclair, Mr. T. Johnston, and Mr. Ernest Brown; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 26th September, and to be printed. [Bill 44.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. James Stuart.]

PENSIONS AND GRANTS

Mr. Kendall: I welcome this opportunity of raising the question of anomalies in the pay and allowances of our Service men and their dependants. In the short space of time allotted to me and in view of the fact that other hon. Members wish to speak on this subject it is obvious that I cannot deal with all the anomalies that exist. It is my intention, therefore, to confine myself to two categories of anomalies which have direct relationship to each other and which are causing great distress to those concerned. Before raising the anomalies themselves I should like in a few sentences to review some of the points that have led up to my raising the question to-day. As the House knows, I had the privilege some months ago of moving a Motion for an increase in the pay and allowances of our serving men and women, when I was very ably supported by hon. Members on all sides of the House. It is true that I and many other hon. Members felt it necessary to force a Division, owing to the uncompromising attitude of the Secretary of State for War on this subject. And then what happened? The Government agreed to meet in committee a number of hon. Members to discuss the whole question of pay and allowances.
After hearing the views of those of us who served on this Committee the Government, last April, issued a White Paper dealing with this subject. At first glance I felt quite pleased with the contents of

the White Paper. It seemed to me that the Government had given reasonable increases in respect of the allowances to wives and children, and so I expressed my cordial approval to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, for whom, apart from this issue, I have very great regard. I gave the Government one of my very rare pats on the back—and very sincerely so—but on closer investigation of the contents of the White Paper I find that serious anomalies do indeed exist. From all these anomalies I shall deal only with those which concern the allowances for the widow with children and the children's allowances. The Government have said that 12s. 6d. a week is the very minimum sum on which a child can be reared, and I think all hon. Members will agree that although 12s. 6d. a week for the first and all subsequent children is a great improvement upon the allowances previously paid, it is nevertheless bare subsistence and nothing else. Therefore, where on earth is the justification for the fact that from the day the child's father is killed, this child, apart from the very real loss of the father, is penalised by a reduction in the allowance from 12s. 6d. to 11s.? What are we doing to allow such a scandalous state of affairs to exist?
It is all very well for those who compiled the White Paper to point out that on the rates obtaining up to April there has been an increase of 1s. 6d. a week in the amount allowed for the first child of "deceased other ranks" and as much as 3s. 6d. for the third and each subsequent child. One cannot surely defend the injustices of other times. Had there been no injustices, had the previous allowances been adequate, the Government would never have increased those allowances to 12s. 6d. for each child. If the Government consider that its 12s. 6d. a week is the minimum necessary for rearing a child whilst the father is alive, there can be no possible legitimate justification for reducing the 12s. 6d. to 11s. the moment the father is dead. I ask the Government to right this grave injustice to-day. The cost will surely be very small in total amount and it will, indeed, be money very well spent. A country must be judged by how it treats the old folk and the young people. The record of our treatment of the old folk is a very sorry one indeed, though I cannot deal with that to-day, as it would be irrelevant to the points I am


raising, but as regards the children of our serving men surely we must treat them as well when they are fatherless as we treat them when their fathers are alive. That is the first anomaly that I wish to bring to the notice of the Government to-day.
The second anomaly, on which I shall use similar arguments, concerns the pension for widows with children In the old days, and up to the early part of this year, the widow of a private received 26s. 8d. a week. To-day she gets 32s. 6d. a week. Yet before her husband lost his life she was paid 35s. a week. If it is fair to pay a wife 35s. a week whilst her husband is alive the Government cannot possibly justify a reduction to 32s. 6d. when the husband is dead, when the position of the widow is vastly worse and when she has to shoulder the whole responsibility of the home. The woman is penalised by losing her husband, which is bad enough, which is a big enough shock, and she gets doubly penalised by the reduction of her allowance from 35s. to 32s. 6d. and the allowance to her children is reduced from 12s. 6d. to 11s.
I hope that the Minister of Pensions, who, I believe, is to answer in this Debate, will not use the argument that the widow is entitled to rent adjustment, providing the weekly rent is in excess of 8s. a week, to a maximum supplement of 12s. a week. That is no defence of the reduction of 35s. to 32s. 6d., because when the husband was alive the wife could apply for a war service grant to help to cover additional expenses of this kind. The least that should be done is to ensure that no woman receives less as the widow of a serving man than she receives as the wife of a serving man. Furthermore, in the rural areas there are very few rents in excess of 8s. a week, but the reduction of 2s. 6d. in her own allowance and of 3s. in the children's allowances if she has two children, making 5s. 6d. in all, does, indeed, cause very great hardship to those living in rural areas. This is surely not the time to quibble about a few shillings a week to a fatherless child or to a widow with dependent children. This is not the time to make these dependants more miserable than they are. The widow has lost her husband, the children have lost their father, do not let us take away part of their money as well.

ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Appropriation Act, 1944.
2. Education Act, 1944.
3. Herring Industry Act, 1944.
4. Housing (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1944.
5. Validation of War-time Leases Act, 1944.
6. National Fire Services Regulations (Indemnity) Act, 1944.
7. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Workington) Act, 1944.
8. Derwent Valley Water Act, 1944.
9. Chesterfield and Bolsover Water Act, 1944.
10. Anglesey County Council (Water, etc.) Act, 1944.
11. Middlesex County Council Act, 1944.

ADJOURNMENT

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

PENSIONS AND GRANTS

Mr. Kendall: I wish to say to the Government in the very strongest possible terms that, while well disposed towards them in the matter of general increases, I must point out that their duty to-day is to remove these two very specific and grievous wrongs, because no word of the Government's in explanation of why these anomalies exist, will ease the minds of those concerned. Only the removal of these anomalies will do that. If the Government cannot make up their minds today on this matter, I hope they will, at least, agree to form another Committee, similar in constitution to the last one, to examine the matter and to see if we cannot put right very speedily what so many of us consider to be serious and grave injustices which are hurting so much the women and children of this country whose husbands and fathers have made the supreme sacrifice. There is a great opportunity to-day for the Government to show that they are generously disposed and to put right the very grave


wrongs that exist. I do not know at this moment what other methods there are in Parliamentary procedure that can be adopted to have these wrongs put right, but I shall look for them if the Government do not act to-day. I therefore ask the Government to take the first steps in this direction, because these anomalies will have to be put right some day, and, after all, there is no better time than to-day to right these grievous wrongs.

Mr. Tinker: As we are going into Recess for a short period, I do not think we could have any better subject for discussion than the one raised by my hon. Friend. It is one which appeals to the country more than any other—the case of the serving men and their families—and the attention of Parliament should be directed to what we believe is a mistake, namely, the reduction in pension rates. May I, at the outset, draw the attention of the Minister of Pensions to the Question which I put down to-day? I understood his reply to be that there were 7,000 children——

Mr. Lipson: Seventy thousand.

Mr. Tinker: That is where we made the mistake. We understood it was 7,000, and we had been working out the figures on that basis. The figure of 70,000 puts the matter right. This matter was discussed on the Estimates on 7th July and the Minister said he hoped the explanation given would clear away misapprehension from the minds of those people who were asking for this increased allowance. I listened very carefully to the subsequent Debate, taking particular note of the reactions of the various speakers. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie) followed the Minister, and, among other things, he deplored what the Minister had done in regard to the widows' and children's allowances. He said we could not be satisfied with the position, and that there was no justification in the reply given by the Minister on that point. He was followed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Preston (Captain Cobb). He also felt very strongly on this matter. He said that the Minister had not satisfied him, and that there could be no satisfaction given until these rates had been equalised. Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Lonsdale (Sir Ian Fraser) spoke. We

all know the keen attention he gives to these questions. He is one of the fairest critics of the Ministry on these matters, but even he had to criticise the reply given by the Minister on the specific point, and he asked the Minister to give the matter further consideration. He was followed by the hon. and gallant Memfor West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison), who said he was not satisfied and hoped something more would be done. Then the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson), who is here now and will probably re-emphasise the point he then raised, made a very strong speech. The hon. Member is one of the fairest critics in this House. Some of us are not as fair as others. Some of us rush into things. I am afraid I am one of those, but there are other Members who take a more reasonable point of view, and they are the Members to whom I want the Minister to pay attention. There were five speakers on that occasion who could not agree with what the Minister said.
The reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary on this matter was very brief. He tried to cover up what the Minister had done, but one felt that he was not wholehearted in his defence of the Minister in that regard. So we come forward now, on the last day before we go into Recess, to reconsider the position. I appeal to the Minister to see what can be done in this matter. Perhaps a little plain speaking will do good at a time like this. The Minister is generous in most matters but unless he first sees a point himself he is very difficult to convince afterwards. He gets the idea, "I have examined all these matters; surely you can trust me to do the proper thing." When hon. Members bring up a matter afterwards, it is difficult to get the Minister into a reasonable frame of mind. But now I ask him to view this matter in a different light. What is the position? All along, there has been too low a rate paid for children. Parliament decided that the matter could not remain where it was and decided to lift the rate. At one time, all children were on one basis. The child of a disabled soldier and the child of a deceased soldier were on one footing. Then Parliament decided that the child of the disabled soldier should have 12s. 6d. a week. One would have thought that when that was done, there should have been the same treatment in the other case. We made a big advance


from 7s. 6d. and 8s. 6d. to 11s. 6d. I agree that Parliament has been generous. But the anomaly is that the child of the disabled soldier gets 12s. 6d. and the child of the deceased soldier is to have us. One would have thought that the fatherless child should have had the higher rate because, after all, nothing can replace its father. The mother is left to plod along with no husband to help her with the conduct of her child, and yet she receives less money than she would have done for the child had her husband been alive. Parliament cannot defend a position like this.
After the great speech made yesterday by the Prime Minister—whose words of praise for our fighting men were all that could be desired—we are making an appeal to the Minister to-day, to deal fairly with the dependants of those who have lost their fathers in this struggle for civilisation. I am not so keen about the widow's point of view, but I do feel very keenly about the case of the children. We must realise the impression that is created in people's minds by injustices. An impression of unfairness will not be removed unless all children are put on the same footing. I want the Minister to realise the strong feeling there is on this matter. When he came to the House some time ago to ask for vast sums of money, the Minister said he knew that whenever he made an appeal to Parliament on a just cause, his demands were never refused. The right hon. Gentleman was right. I am sure the Treasury will not stand in the way. If he thinks that he ought to appeal to the Treasury to give him the money, as we suggest he should, let him do it. The Cabinet wants a lead. I am sure no member of the Cabinet will stand in his way, but if there is any doubt let him come back to the House and he will find that we and the country are behind him. I say to him: Be generous, be just, to these children of the men who have given their lives for our country.

Mr. Tom Brown: I want to support my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) in the desire they have for the removal of the anomalies existing in relation to pensions paid to widows and children of our serving men. I think the Minister is

possessed of a great deal of sympathy, but that he is not in a position to put that sympathy into practice. We have a saying in Lancashire:
Sympathy without relief
Is like mustard without beef.
It is very sharp. I hope the Minister will not try to play the part of the Good Samaritan without the oil, and the tuppence. The anomaly we find is where there is a reduction in the payment made to a widow on behalf of her child. The widow suffers three very heavy penalties. First, she loses her husband, then she suffers a reduction from 35s. to 32s. 6d., and if she happens to have a child the allowance is reduced, for the child, from 12s. 6d. to 11s. Surely by no stretch of imagination can any logical or justifiable argument be put forward for that reduction. I challenge the Minister to justify the reduction of payment made to a child for the loss of its father. I believe I am right in saying that there is no society or social service in the country that makes a reduction when the father dies. Even in the great Beveridge Report, there is no mention of a reduction, and I beg the Minister to realise the anomaly which is now being experienced by the widows and children of our Service men.
Yesterday, this House listened with rapt attention to the speech of the Prime Minister, a speech worth reading and rereading. The Prime Minister opened his speech with these words:
I have, upon the whole, a good report to make to the House. On every battle front all over the world the arms of Germany and japan are recoiling. They are recoiling before the armed forces of the many nations which in various groupings form the Grand Alliance. In the air, on the sea and under the sea our well-established supremacy increases with steady strides … when I last saw General Montgomery in the field he used these words which he authorised me to repeat if I chose. He said, 'I doubt if the British War Office has ever sent an Army overseas so well equipped as the one fighting now in Normandy'; that is what he said, and I must say I think it is a well justified statement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd August, 1944; Vol. 402, c. 1459–1472.]
The Prime Minister went on to talk about our mechanised power and the bravery of our men. It is for the womenfolk whose men are being, and have been, so courageous that we are making this plea in the House to-day. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham said that a nation was judged by how it treated its


old people and its children. In the main, our plea is on behalf of the children. I know that the Minister is not personally responsible; I know the Treasury may be the obstacle in the way, but whatever difficulties there may be, there is none so great that it cannot be overcome by Members of this House. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will remove the anomalies and injustices which this House cannot justify.

Mr. Lipson: I am very glad to be able to support the plea which has been put forward by my three hon. Friends opposite on behalf of the dependants of men killed in the war. It is not very creditable to the Government that it should be necessary to make this plea to-day, and it will be still less creditable to the country if public opinion is not brought to bear to see that this wrong is put right. Yesterday, as we have been reminded, we heard from the Prime Minister a thrilling story of victory not too long to be delayed. But as I listened I could not forget that a price has to be paid for that victory. Our hearts were gladdened by the prospects of victory, but there are many hearts in the country whose gladness will be mixed because they will have lost their loved ones in order to achieve this victory. Only a day after the Prime Minister's speech, we are having to appeal to the Minister of Pensions—and I hold him responsible for a decision in this matter—that the orphans of this war should be given the 12s. 6d. a week which is given to the children of those whose fathers are alive. I ask the Minister: Why do the Government again and again spoil everything that they do for our serving men and others by incredible meannesses of this kind? What is the Minister afraid of? Is he afraid that if the allowance of 12s. 6d. is given mothers will be too well off, that there will be too much going into the home? The amount of money involved is less than £250,000. Do we really want to save that small sum at the expense of these children? We are all living in hopes of a brave new world. Shades of a brave new world, when we have to plead for fair and just treatment for the dependants of those who have made possible this brave new world!

Mr. Murray: I would like to say something in relation to the statement which the Minister of Pensions

made on 7th July in the House. He said:
In the view of the Government the principle of equality cannot be accepted, since the widow's obligations and commitments are not the same as those of the wife of a serving man who looks forward to the return of her husband."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1944; Vol. 401, c. 1450.]
I am very sorry to learn that the Government's view is against equality for the soldier's widow. The excuse given by the Minister will not bear investigation. This is the first time I have heard the argument used that a widow's commitments and obligations are not the same as those of the wife of a serving man. I have always understood that a home has certain standing charges, no matter whether it is the home of a soldier and his wife or of a soldier's widow. Rent, rates, coal, light, insurance, food and clothing all remain the same. The widow still lives in a real world. She still buys in the same markets. I have never yet seen a notice in a business establishment which says "All prices reduced for soldiers' widows." I realise that there are some things that a soldier's wife does which a widow is no longer required to do. It has been my privilege and pleasure to visit many homes and I have several times seen soldiers' wives take pen, ink and paper and write the daily letter to their loved ones. I should not think that was a great obligation. It is a great pleasure to write those letters, and a greater to receive letters in return from the husband. But, once those letters stop, her mind becomes troubled and she fears the worst. When the dreadful news is made known that she has no longer a husband to write to and that there are no strong arms left to protect her, her life is entirely changed. The sky becomes dark, the road becomes rough and the cross becomes heavier.
A further blow awaits her. The Minister quoted the case of a widow with three children. I will take the same example. Instead of 35s. she receives 32s. 6d., and instead of 12s. 6d. for each child she receives us That is a reduction of 7s. a week, though she still has to meet the same expenses as before. That is £18 4s. in a year. In 10 years she has lost not only her husband but £182. That is one of the greatest tragedies that we have to face. It is not by any means the reward from a grateful


country that we heard about yesterday from the Prime Minister. The Minister of Pensions reminded us in July of rent supplementation. It is right and proper that we should be reminded of it but I do not see how it could be otherwise. If I understand that correctly, it is done so that a widow with a heavy rent may be left with the same spending power as a widow with a reduced rent. In my division there are more people with a margin of 8s. or 10s. a week, who will receive no supplementation, than with 20s. Very few people will receive any supplementation at all. I do not think anyone wishes a woman with 20s. a week rent to receive the same as a woman paying 8s. This rent supplementation is not given to increase spending power. A woman will not be able to purchase an extra pair of stockings or boots or a dress or a suit or food or coal or light. She has become simply a channel to the landlord. She passes on the supplementation to him. Therefore the two women have practically the same spending power.
I challenge the Minister to come to my division and ask every soldier's wife whether her obligations and commitments are greater with her husband serving and 35s. for herself and 12s. 6d. for each child than if she lost her husband and had 32s. 6d. and 11s. The Minister and all of us know the answer. She would rather have her husband with the 35s. and the 12s. 6d. The Minister mentioned education, but that is the State's responsibility and not the mother's. If the child has the ability to take advantage of it, it is a great investment for the State to educate the child. If I were the Minister I would not use that argument. It is the child's right. When a lad is called up for the Army he has to forgo business and everything else. He has no say at all. Seeing that education is a national matter, I would not use the argument that it helps the widow. If the child is intelligent, the State gets its own return. I would ask the Minister to think again. I plead with him to give these women a fair chance. They have given their all for the country when they have given their husbands. If he will endeavour to convert the Government from their point of view and use his influence to bring the 32s. 6d. up to 35s. and the child's 11s. up to 12s. 6d., he will earn

their grateful praise for the rest of their widowhood.

Mr. Douglas: The question to which I want to direct attention relates to the practice the Minister has adopted of refusing to grant pensions in the case of men who have suffered from certain so-called constitutional diseases or diseases of which the cause is unknown. It is not a question of alleged mistaken decisions in certain isolated cases but a question of a deliberate policy of excluding completely certain categories of cases and refusing to give them the benefits which the Royal Warrant provides. It is more. It is an act on the part of the Minister which in effect has thrown back upon the claimant the onus of proof, which the Royal Warrant was intended to remove.
This question of onus of proof has agitated the House very much from time to time and it was very largely on that account that a White Paper was laid before Parliament in July, 1943, which contained proposals for amending the Royal Warrant. The Amendment was in fact made on 4th October, 1943. It turned on the question of entitlement, and it provided that a pension should be granted if it was certified that a case of disablement was due to a wound, injury or disease attributable to or aggravated by war service and, in the case of death, that the death was due to or hastened by a wound, injury or disease attributable to or aggravated by war service, or aggravation by war service of a wound, injury or disease which existed previously. It provided that there should be no onus on any claimant to prove the fulfilment of those conditions and that, where the injury or disease that led to the man's discharge or death during war service was not noted in the medical reports made on the commencement of war service, a certificate should be given as a matter of right unless the evidence showed that the conditions were not complied with. It further provided that the benefit of any doubt should go to the claimant.
That seems to me to mean that to qualify for a pension there must be a certificate that disablement or death is due to war service. That certificate must be given if the injury or disease was not noted on the man's papers at the time when he enlisted, and the only ground


upon which the certificate can in that case be refused is if there is evidence showing that the condition was not fulfilled, in other words, evidence showing that the disablement or death was not caused by war service. There is a positive obligation of proof placed upon the Minister to show that the cause of the disablement or death was something else than war service. That by itself, quite apart from the paragraph dealing with onus of proof, shifted in these particular cases the burden of onus of proof on to the Minister. That was done automatically by the terms in which it was worded, quite apart from the general provisions that no onus of proof should rest upon the claimant, and quite apart from the further provision that in cases of doubt the benefit of the doubt should be given to the claimant.
In these cases the Minister has entirely ignored all these provisions. Instead of considering each case upon its merits if he wanted to dispute that a certificate should be given where the death was due to some disease which was not noted on the man's paper on enlistment, he has established categories of cases and says, "None of these cases are to be deemed to be attributable to war service, and I automatically rule them out of the scope of the Royal Warrant completely." In so doing the Minister has thrown the onus of proof off himself on to the claimant as a systematic measure. In doing that he is entirely disregarding the terms of the Royal Warrant. I had a long correspondence over one case with the Parliamentary Secretary, in which it has been made perfectly clear to me that that is the course which is being followed. The Minister himself said, in reply to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson):
I am glad that this matter has been raised because the question of these diseases—though it is only a short list of them—that cannot be attributed to service is one that exercises the attention of many hon. Members."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July, 1944; Vol. 402, C. 738.]
That is a clear statement that the Minister has a list of diseases in respect of which he refuses to accept the principle laid down by the Royal Warrant that, if the disease was not noted on the man's papers, it is to be presumed that his disablement or death was caused by it. Indeed, the Minister said much the same thing in the Debate on the White Paper on 20th July, 1943. At that time one

might have thought that he was merely describing existing practice and not making a statement about what his practice would be in the future, because he said on that occasion:
At the present moment certain diseases are listed as not attributable to service because medical opinion has stated that these diseases cannot be attributed to service, occupation or anything else."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1943; Vol. 391, c. 796.]
On the other hand, the White Paper was introduced to the House, not by the Minister, but by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then Lord President of the Council. He said:
The first presumption—I am putting this in non-technical language—is that a man's condition as recorded on his admission to the Service was in fact his condition at that time. The second is that any subsequent deterioration in his condition was due to his service. We provide, further, in terms, that there shall be no onus of proof on the claimant, and that the benefit of any reasonable doubt, any point where doubt arises, should be given to the claimant."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1943; Vol. 391, c. 718.]
Not only that, but at a later stage in his speech the right hon. Gentleman said, in reference, not to the proposed amendment to the Royal Warrant, but to some phrases in the White Paper dealing with consensus of medical opinion:
I gather that hon. Members are concerned about the implications of the reference 'to the consensus of medical opinion.' We have to face that. We have provided that there shall be no onus put on the applicant, that there shall be a presumption in his favour, but if you find a condition which doctors are universally agreed is not attributable to war service, then, rebutting evidence would be admissible, and the presumption with which you start may be overborne.
I draw attention to that. It is not a setting up of a category of cases which are not permissible, but it lays down that in any particular case rebutting evidence may be given—quite a different matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) was not entirely satisfied, and asked the right hon. Gentleman this question:
The phraseology of the paragraph is quite clear in stating that there is a presumption in favour of the man. Then the second sentence goes on to say that, in certain circumstances doubt may be thrown on the presumption.
This is the reply by the right hon. Gentleman:
I do not think that hon. Members should be suspicious. There is no trap here. But it


is the fact that the presumption which is set up by the changed wording is not what the lawyers call an absolute presumption. It can be rebutted by other evidence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1943; Vol. 391, c. 721.]
That is perfectly clear, and it shows that the Minister has not been pursuing the course of conduct which the Government anticipated would be pursued when they laid the White Paper and made the amendment to the Royal Warrant, because the Minister is not considering each case on its merits. He is not rebutting the presumption in favour of the claimant by bringing evidence. He is doing something totally different by saying that there is a consensus of medical opinion that no case of this kind can possibly be caused by war service. That is entirely contrary to what the Royal Warrant says. It says exactly the opposite, that the presumption is that these cases have been caused by war service. If the Minister wants to dispute any one of these cases he must bring forward evidence relating to that case—not statistics relating to hundreds of other cases which are not in issue and not a consensus of medical opinion, but definite evidence relating to the particular case to show that in that case the presumption in favour of the claimant has been displaced by positive evidence that the disease was caused by something outside war service.
That is the obligation which has been thrown upon the Minister, to show that there was a cause outside war service which was responsible for the disease. The Minister cannot perform that duty of giving evidence because it is admitted that these diseases are of unknown origin, and, if they are of unknown origin, it lies outside his power to show that there was a cause outside war service which produced them, because that would be an allegation that there was a definite origin. On all these points I say that the Minister has done something which he has no right whatever to do. If I may, I will give a homely illustration of what this results in. Suppose it were to happen that some crime had been committed, and that by a great misfortune the right hon. Gentleman and somebody else were found upon the scene of the crime by the police, and it appeared that either he or the other person was the culprit. I am sure that he would object very strongly, and so would his legal advisers, if the police attempted to give evidence that it was the

consensus of police opinion that benevolent-looking elderly gentlemen like him were prone to commit crimes of that particular nature, and that there were police statistics which showed that in a large proportion of cases it was people like that who were guilty. Our law has never admitted that kind of system and has rejected anything of that nature. If in any other connection any person attempted to apply such a course of conduct in administering the duties which fell upon him, it would, I am certain, be open for an application to be made to the court for a prerogative writ in order to restrain him from committing a systematic breach of the duty which the law has imposed on him.
In the cases about which I am speaking it may well be that the only court of appeal is this House. However that may be, I in all seriousness beg the Minister to look at this matter again, and to recognise that consensus of medical opinion is not evidence, and that it does not matter what was said in the White Paper. The terms of the Royal Warrant are to be interpreted by what is contained in it and not by something that is contained in the White Paper. It is no more permissible to interpret the law contained in the Royal Warrant by reference to statements by somebody, no matter how eminent, than it is to interpret a Statute from the speech of the Minister in introducing it. That is exactly parallel to what is being done in this case. I have it in correspondence with the Minister that this interpretation of the Royal Warrant is justified upon the basis that something was said in the White Paper about the consensus of medical opinion. The Minister has no right whatever to bring in the White Paper in order to try and interpret the Royal Warrant. He has to interpret the Royal Warrant by what is contained in it, and not by any statement, whether it has been drafted by him or the Cabinet or by anybody else, which is contained in the White Paper. I ask that this matter should be taken with the utmost seriousness.
I inquired of the Minister how many cases of this nature there were. He said that he was unable to give any information and that it would take a great deal of labour to disentangle the statistics. I asked him to make an estimate of how many cases were involved, and he declined to do so. I will venture the opinion


that there are not tens and hundreds, but thousands of these cases. It is a matter of the utmost seriousness to have so many people systematically deprived of their rights in this fashion. I have been told in correspondence which I have had with the Ministry that the people who are aggrieved can appeal to the tribunal. I say that appeal to the tribunal is not the proper remedy. It is a proper remedy where there has been a difference of opinion with regard to the isolated facts of an isolated case. This, however, is a course of conduct which is being embarked upon by the Minister. It is not a thing that can be righted by the tribunal. It is a matter which ought to be righted by the Minister himself. He ought to set up another course of conduct in accordance with the terms of the Royal Warrant.

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): I think we have had the time allotted for this Debate, and I know that other hon. Members are anxious to deal with other subjects. I will therefore reply as fully, but as briefly, as I can to the points which have been raised. I realise the interest which my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall) has taken in this subject of pay and allowances but I am surprised—because when the White Paper was produced by the Government, in which various increases were proposed in pay and allowances and increases in widows' and children's pensions, he expressed his great satisfaction at what had been done—that he has left it to this late hour to bring forward these points.

Mr. Kendall: Mr. Kendall rose——

Sir W. Womersley: It is all right, the hon. Member does not need to get worried.

Mr. Kendall: The Minister it is who seems to be getting worried and not I. I want to point out that on two occasions I have asked the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House for an opportunity to discuss the anomalies existing in the White Paper, and I have taken the present opportunity to raise cases which concern me and my constituency very deeply indeed.

Sir W. Womersley: I am not complaining of the hon. Member raising the matter; I am thanking him for raising it. Although we have had this matter raised on two occasions it is just as well to finish

it off now and have done with it. I hope the hon. Member does not mind my giving expression to my satisfaction.

Mr. Kendall: Certainly not.

Mr. Lipson: It depends a very great deal upon the Minister's answer whether the House will be satisfied.

Sir W. Womersley: I shall give the House my answer, if hon. Members will let me. All these matters were taken into consideration by the Government before the White Paper was issued. It was definitely decided that the principle of equality between wives and children of serving officers and men, and widows and children should be accepted. That was a definite decision of the Government after they had given the most careful consideration to the matter. The demand put forward to-day goes beyond any pensions demand that has ever been put before this House, and I must repeat what I said on a former occasion, that hon. Members must realise that the amount of the increase given to the widows and children was substantial. Taken quite apart from the allowances it would have been regarded as extremely generous. A far greater sum was allotted to the widows and the children than had ever been asked for by any organisation of ex-Service men or their dependants.
Hon. Members should try to put themselves in my place. I will be frank with the House, and say that when I ascertained that these allowances for serving men, wives and children were to be increased, I realised that it was my duty to tell the Government that they would leave a very wide gap between the allowances and the pensions. I am glad to say that my point of view was accepted that something had to be done for the widows and children. If a substantial increase of allowances was to be given, the question of pensions had to be considered at the same time. It was decided that the pensions should be increased. That was also included in the White Paper. Possibly it would have been better to have issued from my Ministry a separate paper. There was a definite connection between the two.
Hon. Members have asked—and I expected that this would be said—that if it costs 12s. 6d. to keep a child when the father is alive, why has the sum to come down to 11s. afterwards. We have to


find the answer. Let us get down to this matter. Does any hon. Member say that the increase which was given on that occasion was not substantial?

Mr. Kendall: It was a justifiable increase.

Sir W. Womersley: I quite agree, but if it had been given by itself and without any application to the question of allowances, it would have been regarded by this House as generous, and it is generous.

Mr. W. J. Brown: There is nothing generous about 12s. 6d., in any circumstances.

Sir W. Womersley: The hon. Member must take into account all our social services. If he wants to raise children's allowances all round, that is another matter. I am here concerned with the children of the ex-Service man and I have to see to it that I get the best treatment I can for them. I think I have succeeded in doing so. The question of the widow has not been stressed very much. I think it was the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) who said he was not as much concerned with the widow. The hon. Member for Grantham said: "Do not trot out that argument about the rent allowance." I am going to trot it out. It is a very important thing indeed. I could not expect to have both. The rent allowance concession had only been made a short time before and I did then feel, on inquiry, that I had made a full investigation of all these cases of the widow who was left with a heavy rent to pay. This covers rent and rates and not just the amount of the rent. Such a widow, living in London, or one of the larger towns, or even on the outskirts of one of the smaller towns, in the new houses, was at a tremendous disadvantage. I wanted to help that woman and I realised that rent supplementation would be the right and proper method. It entailed no means test or inquiries. All that we wanted was to see the rent book or the receipt for the rent and rates. That was the simple procedure and I can assure hon. Members that it was received with great acclamation by all those who represent the ex-Service men's interests.
If I had had to withdraw it there would have been a definite outcry. I would again ask them to put them-

selves in my place. I am asking for something as near to equality as it is possible to get. Take the case of a widow with 32s. 6d. as against 35s., plus rent allowance. I can understand, and also realise, the position in the constituency of the hon. Member. I am a Lincolnshire man, and I know that there will not be many houses over 10s. a week with rent and rates included. The women in the cheaper houses are not getting the benefit but they are assisting their sisters in the district who are in a different position as regards rent and rates. I do not find in my part of Lincolnshire that anybody is taking any exception to this position. If they had the extra rent to pay they would want the extra allowance, but no one has ever said a word to me in my part of the constituency on this matter.

Mr. Kendall: Is it not a fact that a serving man at the present time can apply for a war service grant to help him to cover the additional rent which he is paying? Why confuse the issue?

Sir W. Womersley: If the hon. Member had been present at more of our Debates he might understand a little better.

Mr. Kendall: I am present every day that the House sits.

Sir W. Womersley: The hon. Member does not understand the procedure in calculating what should be given for a war service grant. Rent, rates and cost of education are taken into account, but on both sides of the ledger, in service income and pre-service income, for the purpose of forming a calculation where there is a deficit between what the man was receiving as against his expenditure. We apply the principle of ascertaining how much the family are out of pocket by the man being in the Service. I say that rent supplementation fully balances any differences in the widow's pension.
The question may be asked, "What about the children?" You cannot take them as separate units. They are living in the same household. Take the case of widows with three children, the illustration that I gave on a previous occasion. Hon. Members will find that there is an increase from 26s. 8d. to 32s. 6d. per week in their pension, and then there are the allowances for the children, which has gone up, as the hon. Member has stated, from 9s. 6d., 8s. 6d. and 7s. 6d. for the first, second and third children to an all-round sum


of 11s. Taking the average for the rent allowance, it brings up the figure pretty nearly to a square balance. In addition to that, I want to mention some of the things said about education. We must take this into account because it is there, as a definite and specific benefit. Educational allowances have been increased from a maximum of £50 to £80—at any rate, I have got consent for that to be done. The age-limit, instead of being eight years, is going down to five. If it is a wise thing that the children should receive that education—I know it is said that it is the nation's obligation to provide education as we shall do, under the new Education Act—there are differences in conditions. I am prepared to look at this matter again when the Act comes into operation, because it may affect many of these cases. It is true that at the present time it is there as a decided benefit. We are dealing with the matter now, and we must take it into account. I say that there is no justification for a demand made simply for the sake of equality. The point at issue is whether the increase which the Government have approved and put into operation is such as to give satisfaction to those who have to receive it. I can say definitely that it is.
Let hon. Members take note that the increases had to apply to all the widows, including the war widows of the last war. I hope that hon. Members will realise that I was not not dealing just with the new war pensioners but that the old pensioners are in also. Remember also that we have a tremendous additional burden. We have not only the three Fighting Services but the Merchant Navy which is, at any rate, equal in service to any of the Fighting Services. I have also to see that they get exact and equal treatment with the men of the Royal Navy because they are on equality. In addition to that, we have to deal With all the Civil Defence Services, and that is a very big matter. I have also the fishermen, and the general civilian population, who are insured against damage by enemy action. That is just beginning to grow into a very formidable task. Hon. Members must bear in mind those points, which I pointed out in my speech on the Estimates. It has jumped up to £80,000,000 now. The highest it ever was after the last war was £106,000,000 paid out for pensions in 1922. Over 3,000,000 persons received pensions in that year. I warned the

House that they would have to provide larger and larger sums, and I said then, and I repeat it now, that I do not expect that I should get any opposition from the House. But they must bear in mind that we must not over-burden the position. We must be fair, and fair all round. We are dealing with these things now, and I am a practical man as well as a little bit sentimental, I have a little bit of both in my make up, and I say I am here to defend the rights and privileges of the ex-Service men, the widows and the dependants, and I am going to do it. But I am also here to advise as to what I think is the best course to pursue to get what we require, to stabilise the position not merely for a passing phase.
In dealing with allowances it is well known that they are only of a temporary nature. If, as the Prime Minister forecast yesterday, we are getting near the end of this war we shall get to the end of the allowances both for the wives and children when the men are demobilised. That will remove the anomaly straight away. We have to deal with these things and as and when we have finished with one we can get on to the other. Let us have it clear. I am not putting up any controversial argument. In dealing with these matters it is not just a question of these particular allowances, believe me. We have got to face the position, and the sooner we do so the better. I have said, time and time again, that when this war is over and we have some idea of what our commitments and obligations are, then there should be a thorough review of the whole position of war pensions in the light of circumstances that then exist. If we overload the boat now we shall lose in the long run. I have put this point to representatives of ex-Service men with, I think, great effect. It is necessary to be fair all round, and merely to compare one with the other is not doing what I think ought to be done in these matter. I must say that the Government have considered this time and time again, and the Government have said definitely that is the figure they are agreed upon and no alteration, That is the only message I can give to hon. Members.

Mr. Kendall: If it is true that it costs £50,000,000 to give the increased pay and allowances, can the Minister say how


much additional money is required to pay the 35s. a week to the widows and 12s. 6d. a week to the children?

Sir W. Womersley: No, I can give the figure for the children at the present time, those on our books; it is £240,000 per annum. But I have to budget for something far different from that. I am hopeful that we shall finish up in a favourable position compared with the last war, because to-day, as compared with the last war, our casualties have been light. They have been distressing enough to those who have suffered but light as compared with the last war. I hope the position will be the same at the end of the war. Then this House can deal with the matter. They can say "We know what our commitments are. We can deal with them," and, I hope, deal with them generously. But I also have to bear in mind that we might—and we have been warned about it by the Prime Minister himself—have very heavy casualties. I hope we shall not, but if we have, we shall have to deal with the position in the light of what it is. At any rate, the positive answer is that the Government have given this serious consideration, and they authorise me to say that that is the final word as stated in the White Paper, and that is the only thing I can say to the House to-day.

Mr. Tinker: Will the Minister convey to the Prime Minister the feelings expressed to-day by hon. Members on this matter, to see if it can be reviewed again?

Sir W. Womersley: I take it that this Debate will be fully reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I can assure hon. Members that I will see that my right hon. Friend's attention is drawn to it and also who the hon. Members are who introduced the matter. He may want to hear more about it. At all events, I will pass it on to him.
I come to the question raised by the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Douglas). I must cross swords with him at once. I assure him of this: I do not take my advice from any outside lawyer on these matters. If he challenges my action in these matters on legal grounds, I can assure him I am Well fortified by the best legal opinion we can get. I am not going to argue with him on these legal points. It has never been my

forte, and I have never done so, and thank goodness I do not want to. But he is entirely mistaken in suggesting that I am acting contrary, not only to the White Paper but to the Royal Warrant. I am too careful to do that. The hon. Member's view is that the consensus of medical opinion is not evidence as required by the Royal Warrant. I think that was his point.

Mr. Douglas: That is one.

Sir W. Womersley: This is a matter I have to take into account very seriously, because the hon. Member has charged me with unconstitutional conduct in not carrying out the White Paper.

Mr. Douglas: Not the White Paper, the Royal Warrant.

Sir W. Womersley: There is the question of these cases going to the tribunal. If he goes to the tribunal and is refused, as these cases have been refused by the tribunal time and time again, and if there is this point of law, then he can apply for the case to go to a higher court on the point of law, and the matter can be argued and decided. If it is decided that we have been in the wrong, I am prepared to stand up to it, and I shall have a few words to say to those legal gentlemen who are Members of the Government who have advised us. But I think the hon. Member is entirely wrong in the presumption that I acting wrongly. I am prepared to stand my chance in a court of law. Let us get down to this point: what do we do as regards these diseases certified as constitutional. I would like the hon. Member to realise that in supplying the list to him, that was not meant as an indication that we had turned down every case suffering from a disease which the consensus of medical opinion had declared was not due to war service. There is such a thing as an aggravation by reason of certain circumstances—wrong diagnosis, wrong treatment in hospital; all these things we taken into account and I can assure the hon. Member we do treat every case as a case, not as one of a series. But we are guided by the medical opinion on the diseases that cannot be attributable to war service.
How do we arrive at that consensus of medical opinion? I think we have taken what every Member would agree to be the right course. Immediately after the


last war—the then Minister of Pensions obtained the views of authorities through the Disabilities Committee—to get a real opinion on this question—and these authorities comprised experts nominated by the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons and the Medical Research Council, and the entitlement practice of the Department was based on their advice. Could we have gone to any better body for advice? We have gone to the highest medical authorities in the land. A similar practice was maintained throughout the years between the wars, and in particular by reference of questions of difficulty to the Medical Research Council and to independent medical experts appointed by the Presidents of the Royal Colleges. This procedure has been used to the fullest extent since the beginning of the war, and extended by the holding of special conferences with eminent specialists on new problems as they arise. I am very anxious to get the proper advice on this question because it is a matter which does, as I have said before, excite a good deal of interest. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) raised this matter and it was debated. He instanced two cases of cancer, and I think the case the hon. Member for North Battersea has in mind, about which he has been in correspondence with my Parliamentary Secretary, was a cancer case.

Mr. Douglas: No.

Sir W. Womersley: Whatever it is, it is one of these diseases scheduled by the consensus of medical opinion as not due to war service.

Mr. Douglas: What do they say it is due to?

Sir W. Womersley: In that case we deal with the matter in this way. If there has been a wrong diagnosis or any medical neglect, and it has aggravated the complaint, even in a slight degree, or if it has resulted in a shortening of life, I grant a pension. But where it is, definitely, a case in which death is certified to be from one of these diseases which the consensus of medical opinion says is constitutional, and not related in any way to service, I have ample and clear evidence upon which I can work.

Mr. Gallacher: It is good that the Minister should get such valuable medical advice in a matter of this kind,

but does he not consider it advisable to get the advice of psychologists and humanitarians?

Sir W. Womersley: I do get advice from psychologists and humanitarians in nerve cases.
Finally, let me point this out to the hon. Member for North Battersea. I repeat that I have to view this question as the representative in this House, as I claim to be, of the ex-Service man and the dependants of ex-Service men. I had a long experience before I was ever in the House of Commons or thought of becoming Minister of Pensions. I know a good deal about the difficulties, but there is one principle we must maintain. Ex-Service men, I think, are pretty unanimous on this. For service, or disability by reason of service, we gave these men, by Act of Parliament, special privileges. Is anyone going to refuse that? We have got it by action of this House. It was put in a Measure that after the war ex-Service men should have an advantage. If we are to maintain that principle, we cannot have it both ways. It must be clearly laid down that a disability is due to, or aggravated by, war service. Otherwise we are going to give away the one thing for which we have been fighting. These men, when it is certified that a disability is not due to war service, or aggravated thereby, have to come under our ordinary social service conditions. They get no better and no worse treatment than the ordinary civilian. They get no advantage, because it is not a war service injury. If, as I said on a previous occasion, there happens to be at the moment a very wide difference between our benefits and the social services now, I am going to maintain as far as ever I can the advantage for the ex-Service man and his dependants. If there is any criticism about the other aspect, the remedy is to see that it is put right when the matter comes before this House, as it will before long.
I have said that repeatedly about widows' pensions. There is no such person now as a widow without a pension, as hon. Members know. If they do not get war pensions, they can qualify for contributory pensions. The great difference is that one pension amounts to 10s., and the other to 32s. 6d. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Well, there will be an opportunity for the House to deal with


those matters—I am just passing it on as a hint. If all the people in the country were treated as generously as the people for whom I am responsible, there would perhaps not be so much complaint.

SERVICE PAY AND ALLOWANCES

Mr. Bellenger: My hon. Friends who introduced the subject of pensions dealt with a category of people whose claim on the Government for compensation is due to the fact that somebody has been killed or disabled in the war. I believe, and hope, that those will be far fewer than the number of fit soldiers who will come through this war, and their dependants, whom we have to consider and protect, just as much as we have those who are affected by war action. Therefore, in mentioning the few points that I want to raise, I am dealing with a much larger body of persons. I do not for one moment disagree with the very substantial points that have been put by my hon. Friends—I may say that I agree with them entirely, and I am not satisfied, as I am sure that they are not, with the Minister's answer. My points are directed to the Financial Secretary to the War Office. I am going to try to compress my remarks very much, in order that we may get back to the time-table, which has been upset, for various reasons. That means that I shall not be able to put my case to the Financial Secretary as completely as I should want to do, but I hope that he will not take the abbreviated case that I am putting to him as covering the whole case, which is much larger.
I want to refer to the Royal Air Force and naval personnel who are being transferred to the Army. I am not complaining about the Government's action in saying to these men, some of whom have volunteered—though certainly not in the case of the Navy, where, I think, it applies only to conscripts—that they are to be transferred from one Service to another. That is due to what we call the exigencies of the war. But the fact that the war situation necessitates the transference of a substantial number of men from one Fighting Service to another affects very distinctly the pay and allowances of the Service to which these transferees are sent. In the case of the R.A.F. personnel who are going to be transferred to the Army, we have had a guarantee in this House from the Secretary of State

for Air that, when they are transferred, they will not lose in pay and allowances merely because the necessities of the war have caused the Government to transfer them. I think that that is only right—although I may say, in passing, that that principle is not always followed in industry, because the Minister of Labour has power to transfer certain classes of labour to lower-paid jobs, and the workers transferred do not then retain the higher pay that they had been drawing. However, in the case of the R.A.F. personnel transferred to the Army, the principle is established that they shall not suffer by drawing rates of pay lower than those that they were drawing in the R.A.F.—because R.A.F. personnel are better paid than Army ranks, and that is not due to the fact that the R.A.F. have better tradesmen than the Army.
I would like to know from the Financial Secretary what is to be the machinery to ensure that this substantial number of R.A.F. tradesmen who are transferred to the Army are not going to be prejudiced in their pay and allowances. I am basing the statement that there will be a substantial number on an announcement made in "The Times," and if I am challenged I can quote it. The Army at the present moment, through their regimental paymasters, are conversant only with Army rates of pay. Therefore, if R.A.F. personnel are put into the Guards, and given jobs for which the Guardsmen working alongside them are paid less than they are, just imagine the complexity of the situation, to put it no higher than that. There may be in the Guards a little, shall we say, talking, in spite of their discipline. So what machinery is going to be devised by the War Office to ensure that the guarantee given by the Secretary of State for Air will be implemented when these men get into the Army? That raises a very vital point of principle. I believe that some of these men will have to be switched back to the R.A.F. and the Navy when we have finished with Germany. What is to happen if we get conditions which necessitate the switching of large bodies of men, some of them volunteers, from one Service to another, if we maintain the present differential rates of pay? This matter is very vital in connection with our post-war Fighting Services. It has got to be settled; and, in my opinion, it has got to be settled in this way.
When you are using men for combined operations, putting naval men into battle-dress, as you have been doing, and now putting R.A.F. men into khaki battle-dress, you must have some basis on which to recruit your post-war Services; and that basis must be equal as between the three Services. You have to break down, to some extent, as the war is doing, the old, self-contained system whereby one Service is complete in itself, including its pay rates, and has no relation to its sister Services. That is the principle which I am afraid I am not able to elaborate to-day, but to which I shall return in this House, and possibly outside, again and again until it is settled. Are we, after the war, going back to the pre-war days, when we had to induce C.3 men to come into the Army, and to give them 2½d. a day extra for milk, so that we could make soldiers of them? If we are, and if there is any resuscitation of the fighting spirit in some aggressor nations after the war, we are going to start the next war—and some Members talk about the next war, although I hope we are going to avoid it, by methods that I will not go into now—with an Army and an Air Force not able to compete in stamina with those of potential aggressor nations.
I want to come to an anomaly, which I think my hon. and learned Friend understands, arising out of the White Paper that the Government recently issued regarding the improvement in pay and allowances. This bears some relation to my previous point, namely, the sort of inducement that you are going to offer to men to get the best sort of personnel for your Army, Navy and Air Force, either now or in the future. In the White Paper, the maximum qualifying allotment that a man has to make, up to and including the rank of corporal in the Army and comparable ranks in the other two Services, in order that his wife shall draw the family allowance of 35s. laid down by the Government, is 10s. 6d. It is well-known that the backbone of the non-commissioned ranks are probably the sergeants. I do not think that any hon. Member with Service experience would deny that, just as the junior officers, the platoon commanders, are really the backbone of what we might call the front line troops, the sergeants are the backbone of the N.C.O.'s. I speak from experience of that, and I would far rather, in

going into battle, have a good sergeant even than a good colleague as second lieutenant. The good seasoned sergeants, and, of course, the more senior N.C.O's, such as staff sergeants and the rest, are the backbone of the non-commissioned ranks. Yet, under the White Paper proposals, as soon as a corporal becomes a sergeant, his qualifying allotment is increased to 17s. 6d., and the Government allowance is reduced by 6d. They add to the maximum allotment made by the corporals and privates 24s. 6d., which brings the amount for the wife up to 35s., if she has children, but, in the case of the sergeant, they say to him, "You have done very well: you have earned your third stripe. We will increase your pay to 7s. a day, but we will increase your allotment to 17s. 6d. and we will contribute, not 24s. 6d. but 24s." The corporal's wife gets 35s. a week, and the sergeant's wife gets 41s. 6d. You are, to some extent, penalising these men, who are doing their best to qualify for promotion by becoming good N.C.O's. I think the Financial Secretary should tell the House that the War Office are prepared to reduce the qualifying allotment that the sergeant has to make, and, at the same time, to keep the allowance to the wife at the same figure, or, in some way, to ameliorate the conditions the sergeant has to face when he rises to that rank.
The next thing is a question, raised by a deputation consisting of Members of this House and members of the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association, relating to those unfortunate cases where husbands and wives fall out. There are quite a number of such cases, far too many, in the Services, I am sorry to say. In those cases, the first step that the soldier takes is to say, "I am not going to continue my contributory allotment," and then the War Office say, "We are not going to pay family allowance to that wife." She may be guilty or innocent, but in the case of these innocent wives, who, for some reason or other, the husbands refuse to support, the Government then say "Well, if the husband will not make the wife a contributory allotment, we will not support her, either." Excellent machinery has been set up by the War Office to try and effect a reconciliation, and there is a certain branch of the War Office which is doing good work in this respect. I wish


more of these distress cases would go there rather than to the civil courts, but the unfortunate thing is that the Air Force tries to force these people into the civil courts. I only wish they would set up analogous machinery to that of the War Office to try to keep such matters within the control of the Service Department so that such cases can be settled, if possible, without publicity and by agreement, and, if not, to enforce a compulsory stoppage by an adjudication by a Service officer.
In these cases, if the man stops his family allotment, there is a gap until the reconciliation machinery is set in force or until the court order is made. The deputation asked the War Office to bridge that gap in some way so that the wife, if she was innocent and it had not been her fault that there had been some separation, should not lose her family allowance. The woman may have children, and it is obvious that we want to keep that woman going in the interval. What has the War Office done? It has said that, where redress is sought through the courts they will stop the family allowance six weeks after the decision of the soldier to stop his allowance. In the case of the reconciliation machinery at the War Office, I think six weeks is sufficient to get the whole matter straightened out, but, in the case where the wife decides to go to the civil court, I do not think it is long enough. Especially is this so if the soldier is serving overseas, where the process of law does not work so quickly for a court order to be made and thus ensure that the wife suffers no gap in her family allowance. I think my hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary is seized of that point. I am asking him to do better than he has already done, although I admit that the War Office have done a considerable amount in trying to see that, in those cases where the wife decides to go to the civil court, she is not penalised by that long process of law as she used to be.
Finally, I want to mention the question of the officers' marriage allowance, or, as I think it is called, family lodging allowance. The deputation put the case to the War Office, and, indeed, to the other two Services, and asked that the officer's liability to maintain his wife should be a statutory liability, just the same as it is for a soldier, because it is

enacted by the Army Act that every soldier is bound to support his wife and children, and that enables the War Office, in very hard cases, to make a compulsory stoppage. In the case of officers, there is no such provision, with the result, in a very small number of cases—but hard and sad cases—an officer can neglect his duty to his wife. We asked that it should be made compulsory, either by including in the Army Act or by some other way, a provision that an officer be liable to maintain his family and that, if he did not meet such obligations, the War Office, Admiralty or Air Ministry, would be able to make a compulsory stoppage, which they are not able to do at present, only being able to exert moral pressure on an officer to meet his engagements. I admit that it is hardly feasible to change the whole system of family lodging allowances for wives of officers as we do in the case of men, but it is a point which I urge my hon. and gallant Friend to look into, because I think there is no hon. Member in this House who would wish that any officer holding His Majesty's commission should have the chance of avoiding his domestic obligations. Every hon. Member in this House knows that there is a small minority—very small, I am glad to say—who do try to repudiate these liabilities, and it is left to the Service department to exert moral pressure through commanding officers.

Major C. S. Taylor: There is one statement which the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall) made at the beginning of this Debate which I think, in fairness, should be corrected. The hon. Member traced the history of the battle of pay and allowances in this House, and referred to the time when he had the privilege of introducing a Motion on pay and allowances in the House which I seconded. My hon. Friend said that, because of the unfortunate attitude of the Secretary of State for War, hon. Members and himself forced a Division, as a result of which certain meetings took place between hon. Members and Ministers upstairs in a Committee room. Of course, that is not altogether correct. The Government, through the Leader of the House, made a promise before the Division took place that meetings would take place upstairs in a Committee room between Ministers and hon. Members,


and, on that assurance, some of us did not vote in the Division and saw no real reason for dividing the House.
Many months ago, the late Colonel Victor Cazalet made a suggestion in this House. I do not know whether he actually made the suggestion on the Floor of the House or in a Committee room upstairs, but his suggestion was that it was unfortunate, when members of the Forces were fighting battles all over the world, that we should continually have wrangling over their pay and allowances on the Floor of this House. He made a suggestion which I think was a good one and which I should like to repeat. It was that a permanent committee of hon. Members should be set up to examine the whole question of pay and allowances and any point which any hon. Member from time to time liked to put before it for examination, and that the committee should make recommendations to the Service Ministers. I think that would be a much more happy way of dealing with the matter than the method of having to come back continually to the Floor of the House and produce point after point when they arise. Unfortunately at the moment, we have not got that machinery in existence, and therefore there is one point, of which I have given the Financial Secretary notice, that I want to raise to-day. It is the question of the pay of Army chaplains.
Army chaplains, I admit, when they go into the Army, receive the rank of captain or major, or higher rank, which is given to them because of the dignity of their calling. They do not, however, receive the rates of pay to which their rank normally would entitle them, and I feel it is most unfair to make a chaplain a captain and yet not to pay him as a captain. I admit that they start as a captain, but, nevertheless, the same thing happens in the medical profession, to a certain extent. If a doctor goes into the Army as a general practitioner, he goes in as a full lieutenant, and, if he is a specialist, he goes in as a major and receives pay according to his rank. I think it is a bit hard, in a Christian country, that we recognise the doctor, who looks after the physical needs of the soldier, and pay him according to his rank, while the man who looks after the spiritual needs of the soldier is not paid according to his rank. I hope the Finan-

cial Secretary will be prepared to say that he will have that anomaly altered.

Mr. W. J. Brown: The subject-matter of the present section of the Debate rather overlaps the subject-matter of the Debate which we have just concluded, and I want to begin by asking one specific question which is rather more appropriate to that Debate than to this. My daughter lost her husband in Normandy last week. He was a private. The majority of the Army must inevitably consist of privates; they cannot all be generals. She had, by him, a child, and drew a separation allowance in respect of her husband and a child's allowance in respect of the child. She had no grant from the War Disabilities Grants Committee, and will not be eligible for the additional grant in the cases of rents over 8s. a week. Her circumstances before and after the death of her husband, so far as the cost of living for herself and her child are concerned, are absolutely identical. Nevertheless, her own personal allowance will be reduced by 2s. 6d. and the allowance in respect of the child reduced from 12s. 6d. to 11s. I submit that there cannot, in that case, be the slightest justification for any reduction whatever. If I quote my daughter's case, I do it for two reasons—first, that it is typical of thousands and thousands of cases and because the majority of the other cases are far worse than the case of my daughter, because, in her particular case, there is a stout parent—physically and financially—who will look after her if things go wrong. I hope that observation will be passed on to the Minister of Pensions, because the House ought not to be content with the reply it has had from the Minister on this subject.
I come now to the other section of the Debate on the Adjournment. I want to support the plea just made, and on which I have been anticipated, by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Major Taylor) for some sensible method of settling questions of Service pay and allowances. In the old days, which I remember as a boy, the question settled itself automatically. The Army was the last refuge of the "down and out," and hunger and poverty were its recruiting sergeants. That was in the days before unemployment insurance came into being in Britain. The pay of the Army was automatically settled on the basis of what


a man would endure rather than starve. I must say that, although we have gone a considerable way from that day, still that old conception saturates our thoughts. It is true we have separation allowances and children's allowances. We have built up a great pyramid, but the base of that pyramid still is our conception of the soldier as it existed 30 years ago when I was a boy. As a result, we have an immense anomaly between the conditions of the soldier and the industrial worker, which may yet prove to be the cause of grave trouble here in Britain. We have another set of anomalies between the pay of the British soldier, and the pay of the American, Canadian, Australian, South African and New Zealand soldiers. Again, they are anomalies which cause grave difficulties in our own country. The English soldier cannot be the social equal of the American soldier, in the bar or anywhere else, with the present differentiation of pay.
I can see only three ways of dealing with the matter. First, there is our present method of allowing grievances to accumulate until they precipitate a Parliamentary crisis, and, after a series of hurried and unsatisfactory conferences upstairs, produce a botch of a report. That is not an unfair description of our present method of regulating pay. The second and much more satisfactory one is to allow the troops to have a trade union. I am aware that this suggestion would cause shocks in Cheltenham and Leamington Spa, but I see no reason myself why a soldier in his capacity as an employee, which he is, should not be just as free to have a trade union as a civil servant, a prison officer, or any other section of public employees. I think I may be told, as indeed I shall, that the Army is a "disciplinary service" and that you cannot have trades unionism in a disciplinary service. My answer is that that is bunkum. There is no service, from divine service to domestic service, which is not a disciplinary service. The more disciplined the service, the more military in character it becomes, the more arbitrary the character of the power exercised in it, the more does the man need the protection of some kind of organised association to look after his own interests. So I am not impressed by the argument that in a disciplinary service you cannot have a trades union.

It is just as possible to distinguish between such matters as pay and allowances, on the one hand, and military discipline on the other, as we do in the Civil Service, between the interests of the civil servant as a wage earner and his duty as a civil servant.
But I do not think that I can, in a ten minute speech, convert the House to the view that trades unionism in the Army is necessary and, therefore, I am driven to try the next alternative, which is, that we should have a permanent commission which could deal from day to day with grievances as they arose, instead of allowing them to accumulate and then have a spring cleaning and a political crisis every two years over Army pay. The severity of any grievance is in inverse ratio to the duration of its existence. The longer a grievance lasts the more acute it becomes. A little grievance can become a big grievance in time, and a great grievance can become a little grievance if dealt with on the spot. It ought to be possible day by day for a Committee of the House, in conjunction with Service Ministries, to deal with difficulties and troubles and so relieve this House of the long series of Debates which we have had, and are bound to continue to have, on the subject of Army and other Service grievances until we establish some sensible machine.
It is obvious that after the war we shall have a larger standing Armed Force than before. The Army, the Navy and the Air Force are bound to play a much bigger part in our total economy than in the past. If so, we have to make them attractive as careers. If they are to be attractive as careers, the remuneration will have to be set into some sort of relationship to the kind of reward a man may get in industry elsewhere. I do not think that we shall get that result if we trust to our present haphazard methods of dealing with Army pay and allowances. I beg of the Government to think seriously, first, of the suggestion that we might have a trade union. I am not hopeful in this regard as a result of the Government's consideration. It will be too much to hope that half of them can bury their past or the other half remember it. My suggestion is the sounder one, but I urge strongly upon the Government the acceptance of the alternative recommended by the hon. and gallant Member for Eastbourne. I believe that to be a


concrete, practical and helpful suggestion, and I commend it heartily to His Majesty's Ministers.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I have a good many points with which to deal and, on the other hand, the time is limited. Like my hon. Friend who opened this Debate, I will try to cover as much ground as possible in as short a time as possible. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), as usual, has raised some very interesting matters, which at another time I would be very glad to discuss with him. I am sure that he would not expect me to enter into discussion with him on the merits or demerits of trade unionism for the Army, nor would he expect me to go into any long examination of all the various aspects of the general position with regard to pay and allowances in the three Services. It is possible to compare the rates that are paid in the British Services with those that are paid in similar services in other countries, sometimes to the advantage of this country, and sometimes perhaps to its disadvantage. I propose to content myself on that point with reminding the House that the position is not quite as bad as it sometimes appears on the face of it. I find that increases in pay and allowances which have been made since the beginning of the war will cost the State this year not less than £210,000,000. That is a large sum of money.
My hon. Friend who opened the Debate raised a number of points, the first being with reference to the transfer of personnel, but perhaps he would first allow me to express the sympathy of the House with the hon. Member for Rugby in the sad bereavement he has suffered as the result of the loss of the gallant young soldier in Normandy last week. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) asked whether I could give him any information with regard to administrative machinery governing the transfer of the personnel from the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy to the Army under the recent announced arrangements. These men will be discharged from the Navy and the Air Force and, as he indicated, simultaneously called up under the National Service Act by the Ministry of Labour, with orders to report to an Army transit camp, where they will be directed to the appropriate arm of the Service.

They will be given a special block of Army numbers and while the arm of the Service to which they are posted will be administered in the ordinary way by the appropriate record offices, it is intended that a special staff of the Royal Army Pay Corps officers and other ranks will be provided to deal with pay matters affecting the men transferred. In addition, a special staff of officers and other ranks is being provided at the transit camps under War Office instructions to deal with documentation. There will be, as he knows, no possibility of any loss of rank as a result of the transfers, because no men are being compulsorily transferred who have N.C.O or equivalent rank in the other two Services.
Service in the Navy and the Air Force is to count for Service increments of pay and for classification as if it had been service in the Army. In cases where men were receiving a higher rate of pay than that to which they would be entitled under Army Regulations they will on entering the Army be given a vested right to retain their existing rates, as long as they are higher than their Army rates would normally be, subject to the normal Army rules regarding efficiency, which will, however, not be applied until the end of an initial period of six months. None of the men transferred will be regulars, so that no question of loss of pension rights will arise. No allowances and allotments issued to dependants will be disturbed by the transfer. Dependants will get their allowance books in the first instance, but gradually they will be withdrawn and replaced by Army allowance books. I do not think that there will be any danger of the allowances being stopped by the change over, because the new allowance books will be sent to the various post offices before the old books are withdrawn and dependants will be advised that they will have to exchange their books on the next occasion when they go to the post offices to draw their allowances. My hon. Friend made the suggestion, as I understood it, that there should be either general conditions or unanimity of conditions of service in the three Services. I am sure that he will appreciate that that is a very far-reaching proposal which will require the most careful examination, and I am afraid it is not possible for me to deal with that suggestion at the moment.
The next matter to which he drew attention was the position of sergeants in relation to the recent increases in pay and allowances. He emphasised the fact that other ranks up to and including the rank of corporal are required to pay qualifying allotment up to a maximum of 10s. 6d. a week, whereas a sergeant is required to pay 17s. 6d. This point has not escaped notice in the War Office, but the important point, as explained in the White Paper, is that the Government decided to give help where it was most needed, namely, in the lower ranges of pay. The inevitable result of this policy is to telescope to some extent the gradations in the emoluments of other ranks. In other words, while the lower ranks and their wives are much better off than they were before this change, the benefits become proportionately less as the ranks begin to rise. When the changes in the White Paper were under discussion this difference—the question of the 10s. 6d. and the 17s. 6d.—was certainly left untouched but, none the less, the State contribution to the widow's family allowance was increased from 21s. 6d. to 24s. I do not think it can be argued that the position of a sergeant is such that it is not worth while being a sergeant. If one takes the case of a married private, he finds that he and his wife, if there are children, are receiving 56s. a week, a corporal receiving 56s. 6d. a week, whereas the sergeant receives 73s. The limit between the qualifying allotment of 10s. 6d. for the rank and file and the 17s. 6d. for the sergeant is obviously somewhat steep, and I can assure my hon. Friend, for what it is worth, that the possibility of some adjustment is actually under consideration now in the War Office, but I cannot say further than that at the moment.
My hon. Friend referred to what is known as the "gap" and he clearly explained to the House and saved me having to repeat the explanation that in many cases where the Army reconciliation machinery fails to bring about a resumption of normal domestic relations between the soldier and his wife and the soldier persists in withdrawing family allowance there is a gap in the support of the soldier's wife between the date of the cessation of family allowance and the date on which the wife obtained an order from the court or under the Army Act. I can

assure my hon. Friend that his apprehension as to the wife being penalised when she comes to the civil court is met. I may say that it has been necessary to overcome substantial legal and other difficulties but I am glad to be able to say that a solution has now been found to this problem, and that administrative arrangements are now actually in operation which in fact bridge this gap, and should ensure that a soldier's family need not be left destitute owing to the soldier withdrawing his qualifying allotment without due cause. I think my hon. Friend will find that the arrangements which have been made by the War Office adequately deal with that aspect of the problem.

Mr. Tinker: Do I understand that if a soldier without just cause withdraws his allotment to his wife, it is for the War Office to determine whether he is right or not, and if not, the War Office can make it good at his expense?

Mr. Henderson: No, Sir. The soldier has the same right as any civilian, namely, to withdraw support from his wife subject to the wife having redress in the court. What happens in a case affecting a soldier is that if he notifies his commanding officer that he has ceased to live with his wife—to maintain normal relations—then we cannot compel him to pay his money towards the maintenance of his wife by the method of the qualifying allotment, which is essential if the family allowance is to be claimed. I referred to the legal difficulties that obviously exist and which we hope we have overcome, but time will show whether we have or not. What we are proposing to do is to make arrangements which provide that if a soldier notifies the military authorities that he no longer wishes to maintain his wife—he has ceased to live with her—nevertheless we are going to insist that payment shall continue to be made to the wife under the existing arrangements until she has had an opportunity either of going to the civil court for an order for maintenance or, to adopt the alternative procedure, which is to apply to the competent military officer under the Army Act, Section 145, and receive the benefit of an order by him. I do not know whether that explains the position clearly?

Mr. Bellenger: But my hon. and learned Friend ought to say that he gives a limit of six months, in which the wife has to


get a court order. My point is that if the man is serving overseas, it cannot be done in six weeks.

Mr. Henderson: I think my hon. Friend can take it that, in the event of the wife, with reasonable cause, not being able to take proceedings within six weeks, if she notifies the military authorities that that is the position, then we shall continue to bridge the gap.

Mr. Mathers: So that no gap will occur?

Mr. Henderson: Exactly. I think my hon. Friend made another point, the question of officers' wives being entitled to receive direct the payment of family lodging allowance.

Mr. Bellenger: The question of statutory obligation on the officer.

Mr. Henderson: The question of statutory obligation raises a question which is not possible under the law as it stands to-day. This proposal was reconsidered following the deputation to which my hon. Friend referred. It has been found impracticable for administrative reasons to introduce it during the war except to a limited class of officers, to which I made reference when the deputation was received. Perhaps the House will be interested to know what those exceptions are. Officers commissioned after the 21st August, 1941, if stationed in the United Kingdom, or if commissioned after 8th May, 1943, wherever stationed except India and Burma, to whom family allowance was in issue at the date of their appointment to O.C.T.U. or direct from the ranks, have the option of having their family lodging allowance paid direct to their families weekly in arrear by means of the Family Allowance Order Book, or to themselves monthly in arrear in the normal way. That is the position and we cannot change it at present.
With regard to chaplains, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Major Taylor) said, and it is quite true, that doctors in the Royal Army Medical Corps start as lieutenants at 19s. 10d. a day, whereas chaplains start as chaplains 4th Class at 15s. 4d. a day, with the equivalent rank of captain, increasing after three years' service to 18s. 2d. That was an increase which I announced in the House on the Adjournment a year ago. That is the position to-day. The

view has always been taken that doctors should have a higher rate because they have to undergo a long and expensive training and, on the average, might be expected to enter the Army at an older age than chaplains. Moreover, the earnings of doctors in civil life are normally much higher than the stipends of clergymen.

Major Taylor: I only mentioned the doctor for the purpose of argument. I want the chaplain to be paid according to the rank he holds.

Mr. Henderson: I understand that the view of the Service Departments has always been that, broadly speaking——

Major Taylor: He is paid less than the ordinary officer.

Mr. Henderson: I do not think it is quite right to say he is paid less than the ordinary officer. Let me take combatant officers. Until April, 1943, the chaplain was paid 15s. 4d. up to three years' service, when he goes up to 18s. 2d. These rates compare favourably with combatant officers, for a 2nd lieutenant receives 10s. a day and, after six months; becomes a lieutenant, with 13s. a day. After three years' service the combatant officer receives 14s. 6d. a day.

Major Taylor: What does he get as a captain?

Mr. Henderson: A chaplain has the advantage of getting captain's rank as soon as he joins, so he gets the status of a captain, although he has not had the experience of the young combatant officer who, as my hon. and gallant Friend said, is the backbone of the Army.

Mr. Mathers: The chaplains are very important combatants.

Mr. Henderson: They are not combatants, of course. I want to be quite fair to the chaplains. I have here an extract from a report on the work of the Army chaplains in Normandy, which I am quite willing to read to the House. It says:
Pre-battle services were widely held in concentration area camps at embarkation points, and in ships. First-wave chaplains had a rough time and did magnificent work. To many of them it was their first action; and they proved to be well trained. They knew what to do, and did it. They found the dressing stations, helped with the wounded,


and opened cemeteries. All through, the chaplains have been well up in action, and the Commander-in-Chief commented personally on the number of casualties among them, saying: 'I see these things and I know it means the padres are well up with the fighting troops.'
I am quite willing to pay tribute to the work that the chaplains are doing, but it is a very different thing to say that they should be given the same pay as captains, many of whom may have had 10 or 15 years' service.
I hope I have covered most of the points raised in this Debate and, if I have not, I hope the House will excuse me, having regard to the fact that I am well past the time allotted to me.

CIVIL AVIATION

Mr. Tree: I feel that in raising the question of civil aviation to-day an apology is due to hon. Members in that I have nothing particularly new or striking to say on the matter. I will therefore be as brief as I possibly can. However, my hon. Friends and myself who are interested in this subject feel that it would be a dereliction of our duty if we did not raise this matter once again before leaving for a long Recess, and without voicing the alarm and despondency that we feel at the complete failure of the Government to state what their domestic policy in the matter is going to be. I suspect that the reason why they have not been able to make any statement is because they have as yet not been able to make up their minds as to what that post-war policy is to be.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins), who, as hon. Members know, has given a considerable amount of care to this subject, wrote me the other day from Ottawa—he was on his way to Australia as a member of the Parliamentary Delegation—and told me that in the first six months of this year there have been no less than six Debates in the Canadian House of Commons on the subject of civil aviation, and it was considered there to be a matter of the greatest interest to the Commonwealth. In Washington, Members of both Houses of Congress are in constant touch with the matter and are, with the Civil Board of Aeronautics and the operators of the main lines, working on post-war problems. In striking contrast to the interest

displayed elsewhere, we, the centre of a great Empire, vitally concerned with communications, remain apathetic and indifferent, and the fact is that that is due to the complete lack of guidance from the Government. At the moment, their only stock in trade, whenever we have a Debate on this subject, is the somewhat fly-blown cliché that there is a war on. It looks very likely that there may soon be a peace on, and if that happy event comes sooner than we expect—and the Prime Minister in his survey yesterday indicated that that might possibly happen—then, if I may use a vulgarism, it will catch us not with our trousers down, but with no trousers on at all.
It is with the object of warning this House of this real lack of plan that a few of us—and I speak to-day as a Member of the Tory Reform Committee—have urged that a few minutes in this Adjournment Debate be set aside to voice our alarm and our fears for the future. In the past 18 months, during which some of us have been constantly raising this matter in this House and wherever we could get people to listen to us, progress has only been reported in one particular sphere and nothing very concrete has even been reached on that. That is on the international side. There, thanks to the drive and energy of the Lord Privy Seal—and I am quite prepared to give praise where praise is due—some slight progress has been made. We had the Dominions Conference 18 months ago and, if its results were not startling, at least it got representatives from all parts of the Empire round a table. They were able to state their points of view, and it made some of them realise, perhaps for the first time, that we in this country were interested in the subject and wanted to approach it from an Imperial point of view. The conversations that were held with Mr. Berlé in April did, at least, tend to clear the air on a subject which might have caused a good deal of misunderstanding and friction if it had been allowed to drag on without elucidation between ourselves and the United States. I hope the report is true that a Russian delegation has recently arrived in Washington to discuss civil aviation with the American authorities. I only hope, if it is, that they will come on here and give us the benefit of their views before returning to their


country, because no international agreement will be of the slightest use if the Russians do not become a party to it.
It is to be hoped that before the year is out, possibly immediately after the elections in the United States, an International Conference will be called, and at that Conference an International Convention will ultimately be set up to lay down standards of safety, good conduct in the air and on the ground, and also to decide on general principles whereby planes of one nation shall gain admission to, and fly over the territory of, other nations. These decisions must be taken before civil aviation gets really going in the post-war world. As I say, certain progress has been made by the Lord Privy Seal, and I hope that he will be able to go on as the representative to the International Convention because I know that it is a matter which is very close to his heart.
It is about the domestic management of civil aviation that we, on this side of the House, feel deeply concerned, and we wish to put on record our beliefs, and our fears, that nothing is being done in that respect. The first question that must be answered is, What Department of State is going to assume responsibility for civil aviation in the post-war world? Until that is done, it seems to me obvious that there will be uncertainty and fumbling in planning for the future. As to the views of this House, they were made quite clear in the last Debate that we had on the subject of civil aviation which, I think, was on 29th February. In the course of that Debate a unanimous desire was expressed from all sides of the House that civil aviation should be removed from the Air Ministry just as soon as was possible, and that it should be handed over to a civil Department charged with the future development of transport. It was argued at that time, with considerable force, that air transport is a part of transport generally, and that it should be the concern of the Department whose primary responsibility transport is. It seems to me that it is quite clear that the problem of transport and communication will assume such a very important part in the post-war period that it must become the business of a major Department of State.
For a time after that Debate, there were rumours that the Government were going to accede to the wishes of this

House and make an announcement on the subject, but weeks slipped into months, and nothing happened. Evidence is now accumulating that the Air Ministry intends to continue its domination over the civil side of aviation if it can possibly do so. I am a very humble admirer of what the Air Ministry has done in the course of this war, and of the men who have made such a great contribution to winning this war. What they have done is beyond praise, but, equally, it seems to me, they are going to have their hands full at the end of this war in keeping up the lead they have established on the Service side in the course of this war. In addition to that, they are going to have the whole of the Transport Command, which will have to be maintained at a very large level when the war is over. Would it, therefore, not be to their own best interests that they should allow civil aviation to become a part of the general transport system? Unless this esssential decision is taken and the proper organisation assembled before the war ends, I am afraid it is going to find us in a very awkward position.
The next question that is greatly hampering the post-war development of aviation, and for which an answer is urgently required, is, What is going to be the basis of our air transport operations? Are we going to rely for all future developments on the Government-owned monopoly of the British Overseas Airways or are we going to allow private enterprise some share in the future development of aviation? It is quite clear that there is no lack of readiness on the part of private enterprise to enter on this development.

Mr. Montague: With subsidies.

Mr. Tree: Many of them are prepared to operate on an entirely self-supporting basis, and are asking for no subsidies whatever. If the hon. Member opposite would like me to make way for him, I am perfectly prepared to do so on this matter. Many of these companies, who are asking for nothing except the right to operate, have worked out plans in great detail, and they have submitted these plans to the Government, but they are quite unable to get from the Government any idea of what their policy is to be.


One by one, other industries are receiving from the Government an indication that the Government are prepared to consider what facilities they can afford in the post-war period for their development. Yet in civil aviation—one of the most vital and one of the most important of the younger industries in this country—the Government persist in maintaining a stubborn silence as to what their policy is to be.
Why is this? Is it because it is a political issue of such importance that a Coalition Government cannot come to a decision on it, and, therefore, do nothing about it, or is it that the Cabinet is so pressed for time that it cannot spare the necessary time to consider the matter and come to a decision? I do not know what the reason is, but, whatever it is, it is undoubtedly grossly unfair on those companies who cannot get on with their post-war plans. If private enterprise is not going to be allowed to take part, then they should be told so now, and they should be told to get out of the picture. If, in this matter, we lag still further behind the United States than we are already, then, in my opinion, that delay is very largely the responsibility of the Government.
In the matter of aircraft, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Erdington (Group-Captain Wright) is going to say a word or two, but there is much cause for disappointment along those lines too. Promises made several times in another place, in the not far distant past, have remained unfulfilled, and the outlook in that direction is very black indeed, and we are going to have to rely on American aircraft for some years after the war. It is fashionable at present for some people to minimise the future of civil aviation. I have heard people say that a world service can be run with comparatively few planes, and that the whole thing is really of rather small proportions. But one need only study the reports that are constantly being sent to me by the Civil Board of Aeronautics in Washington to realise that the Americans have quite a different attitude on these matters. They are now making thorough investigations, not only of main lines but also of feeder lines. I received, the other day, a very long statement about a survey that had been made of feeder systems to cities and towns as

short a distance as 30 miles apart. Yesterday, the Prime Minister, in his survey of world affairs, spoke for a moment or two on the amount of material that is being flown between India and Chungking and said that more was being flown to-day than could possibly have been carried over the Burma Road. I may be a super-optimist on this subject, but I do not believe any of us here now can possibly visualise the scope of civil aviation in all its aspects in the future, and I do want this country and the Empire to play their proper part in the future development of civil aviation.

Group-Captain Wright: I will not detain the House for many minutes, because my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Tree) has put the picture—a rather unhappy picture—of the present position of civil aviation so clearly before us. But there are one or two points which I would like to underline. It is difficult really to enter into much detail at the present time, because what we are all held up for is a statement of Government policy. We have been asking for this for many years, and although we get hopeful suggestions at times that something is coming we are always disappointed, and so we go on raising this subject in the House on every possible occasion in the hope that the last drop of water will eventually wear away the stone. I take it that one of the things that is holding up this question of deciding policy is the fundamental matter of which Ministry is to administer this vital new industry. Until that is settled I do not see how we shall be able to make any great advance.
Members on all sides of the House have made it clear on every possible occasion that they desire to see civil aviation removed from the Air Ministry. It is a mystery why we cannot get this very necessary thing done. Apart from that, of course, we must know what is to be the method of operation. Is private enterprise to be allowed to return to the field? I say "return," because may I remind the House that a number of firms, some of them quite well-established, were forcibly closed down at the beginning of this war? Are they to be treated differently from the firms in other industries which have been closed, for various reasons, since hostilities broke out, or are they to receive the same treatment, which has been promised by the Government,


that when the war is over they will be given priority in reinstatement in their own trade? Is civil aviation to be treated specially? When the B.O.A.C. Bill was introduced it was made abundantly clear that that Corporation was to deal only With external routes, and that it would not play any great part, internally, in this country. The next point on which we must have information is, What is the Government's policy with regard to the production of British air transport aircraft? Has anything really been done to implement the Brabazon Committee's Report? Would my right hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary tell us what progress has been made with the individual types which were suggested? Has, indeed, any progress been made, except with the "York"? Is he prepared to tell us that the "York" is a really satisfactory machine, comparable with the similar types in use in the United States? What has happened to the "Tudor"? I think I am right in saying that we were in hopes that the prototype of that machine would be flying in September this year.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): The end of this year.

Group-Captain Wright: I wonder how far the prototype of the "Tudor" has advanced. Obviously, my right hon. and gallant Friend knows a great deal more about this than I do and possibly he could tell us something about this when he replies to the Debate. It is all very well for us to talk about a policy of full employment and then proceed to strangle all those enterprising people who are showing such clear evidence that they wish to get ahead with their plans, and which will help in bringing full employment in the post-war period, whether by operating air lines or manufacturing aircraft.
How are we to keep our great aircraft factories going if we come to the end of hostilities and have no jigs and tools or, indeed, plans ready for the machines we are to make for civil use? It takes a long time to bring a machine from the drawing board into actual use, and I suggest that it will be necessary for the Government to take a risk and order civil air transport machines off the drawing board. We did it with some success in producing combatant machines, and there is no real reason why we should not do it with even greater

success in producing civil machines with the greater knowledge which we have today. We must press the Government for help in that direction, otherwise we shall be behind in getting our factories going, and in coming within comparable reach of our friendly competitors across the Atlantic.
Then what about airports? Whose responsibility are they to be? How can anyone plan air routes unless they know there are going to be some organisation and some airports on which they can land and from which they can operate? There will be three types of airport. There will be the large airport for dealing with trans-oceanic services. Obviously it will have to be the responsibility of the Government to produce airports of that size and nature. Then there will be the airport for the British Isles Continental and internal main services. This should be the responsibility of the municipal authorities. I am sure they will very much welcome the opportunity provided they get proper guidance from the Government Department which is going to control the matter. They had rather an unfortunate experience in pre-war days but probably our knowledge has advanced a good deal since then and we may be able to give them better guidance now. I say it should be the responsibility of the local authorities because of the benefits which are likely to accrue to big areas which are well served by the air. One so often gets the suggestion put forward that flying is just a rich man's hobby and the other side is entirely overlooked. It may well be that the rich manufacturer may be the person who actually flies from the airport but if he returns, as the result of saving that time, with a very large contract which will find a great deal of employment for the district, then indeed the air can be said to be helping that district. You cannot possibly measure the benefits of civil air transport in terms of money.
There will be a third type of airport, quite a small affair, to deal with feeder services, and charter services, and indeed with private civil flying, and where the local authorities are not prepared to embark on aerodromes of that kind, it should be the right of private people and companies to lay them down. I should like to know whether the Air Ministry is considering this matter and has any plans. There would be in my opinion a very useful form of contact between the Air


Ministry and whatever Department eventually handles civil aviation. I want to see the control of civil aviation taken away from the Air Ministry because I feel, as we all feel, that the first job of the Air Ministry is to run a first class Royal Air Force, and the outlook that you want for running a first class military service is entirely different from that which you require to develop a commercial enterprise, as air transport must be. We do not want the big posts in the organisation of civil aviation and air transport to be regarded as refuges for ageing Air Chief Marshals. We want very young enterprising men in those positions. But, just as we do not want old men at the top, we do indeed want young men at the other end of the scale. The training of the air crews might well be done through the Royal Air Force and its training organisation. The sort of picture that I envisage is the keen young man of the future—and the keenest of our young men in the future will want to get into close contact with the air—coming as quite a boy into the post-war Air Training Corps, moving from that into a volunteer reserve which will bring him up as a highly skilled potential member of an air crew ready to take his place in the Royal Air Force, in the Auxiliary Air Force, or indeed in civilian life, putting in, say, a month's training every year, and on the reserve of air crew.
I hope such an organisation as that will be the royal road or, if not, at least the normal avenue for all young men, who want to be connected in an active way with flying aircraft, because in the post-war period the flying of aircraft will have to be very severely controlled. As we develop the facilities for flying, in all weathers, day and night, the discipline will have to be very strict if we are to avoid casualties and disasters. It might well be that we should allow disciplined young men in the Royal Air Force to be seconded to this service because in those days, under the high pressure and strain that there will be flying civil air transport, there will be no room for the older type of man, however courageous a pioneer he may be, in carrying out this very heavy work, which has to be run day and night in all weathers to a very strict time schedule. So there will be room for that close contact with the Air Ministry where we can get the best from the Air Ministry,

and alongside it the best, I hope, from private enterprise.
In this post-war development we shall require research facilities the provision of which will be very expensive, and it will be quite uneconomic, and indeed impossible, for individual firms to supply a number of these research centres. There should be a first-class research centre in this country, equalling anything that they have at present, or contemplate, in America, and that should be available to the experts and scientists, on both the military and civilian sides, though the qualities that they will be searching for will be almost diametrically opposed. Still that close contact and exchange of ideas will be most useful, and will, at the same time, provide a very close touch between the military and the civilian sides of aviation. I appeal again to the Government that they will, at long last, produce some policy, and tell us where we are going, so that we can begin to make our plans.

Mr. Montague: It is manifestly impossible to deal adequately with the points made by the last two speakers in the time available, and I do not intend to do so. They are not new points, and they have been discussed thoroughly in preceding Debates. The House is well aware of the Labour Party's policy on civil aviation at the end of the war. I need only say that it is not a policy which supports a call upon the State for all the initiative, for all the science, for subsidies, for risks and for enthusiasm, just for the benefit of private investors who want to fill their bags with the cherries when civil aviation gets going. I will not say any more on policy because we cannot discuss it adequately now. I rise in order to give the Joint Under-Secretary of State an opportunity of dealing with a point which might well be mentioned as we are discussing civil aviation.
After Dr. Berlé visited this country, the Lord Privy Seal undertook, with Government sanction, certain duties in connection with approaches to America for a consideration of the international convention. Lord Beaverbrook made a statement in the other place a little time ago about the progress that has been made. I would like to know whether the Under-Secretary can add to that statement. I ask that particularly from the point of


view of the international side of civil aviation after the war. The Lord Privy Seal made it clear—to me, at any rate—not only in that Debate but also in a statement he made to certain Members of the House, that Australia and New Zealand had agreed upon an Imperial policy, a policy of Imperial organisation and responsibility for the development of civil aviation, and that Canada, under the influence of the United States economically and in every other way—which one can understand—was not in agreement with the other Dominions on that matter. I know that what was called the Canadian plan was turned down, but some of us are rather hazy as to what kind of proposal will be made to the international convention from the standpoint of either an Imperial or an international organisation. I wonder whether the Under-Secretary can enlarge on what the Lord Privy Seal said in another place, and whether any further development has been made since the subject of oil has been substituted for that of civil aviation so far as Lord Beaverbrook is concerned.

Mr. Bowles: I agree with my hon. Friends on the other side that we have raised this matter over and over again and have never succeeded in getting any kind of declaration from the Government on their policy with regard to civil aviation. I remember asking the Prime Minister two months ago in a supplementary question whether he could disclose to the House the policy that Lord Beaverbrook and the Government had in mind for civil aviation. I think his answer was that it was an interesting thought and he would give it consideration. It seems quite clear to me, and I think it must be clear to every hon. Member, that we can expect no post-war policy on civil aviation that will appeal to the obviously conflicting points of view in this House. I fundamentally disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Tree) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Erdington (Group - Captain Wright), about these things. How any hon. Member can expect that a Coalition Government can on this matter, any more than on any other matter, produce a policy that will be satisfactory to all people without sinking fundamental principles, I do not understand. My hon. and gallant Friend said that there were certain com-

panies with enterprising directors who were anxious to get on and prepare their plans. I have no doubt that that is true. Why do they not join with some of us on this side and call a halt to the continuance of the Coalition Government? If that kind of call did come, not only from the country but from all sides of the House, it would not last very much longer.
I made a speech last week on the question of the disposal of Government stocks after the war. I did not see how it was possible for Conservative and Labour Ministers to commit themselves to what was to be done by a future Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough said he spoke on behalf of the Tory Reform Committee. That Committee, I think, is very anxious for a continuance of the Coalition. They are always anxious to take the middle path, and they like Labour Members being in the Government. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot expect to have an abortive Government so far as post-war plans are concerned and retain their seats. I think they are very anxious to make these statements from time to time, as if they were the great spokesmen of the aviation industry in this House. They cannot get any satisfactory answer because the Government have not a policy. It is clear that the Government have not a policy. I know they have not and I think that hon. Members also know it. If, however, they have a policy, the Under-Secretary should say that they have and what the policy is.
I do not see why the House of Commons should always be kept in the dark as to what the Government are doing, what engagements they are entering into at Bretton Woods, or at the forthcoming international conference which is to set up a post-war world, and so on. Why is the House of Commons being put in this position? We are faced from time to time with faits accomplis, and we are told that the Government have said, "We will drive these decisions through the House of Commons." I therefore put it to the Government that they can only know what the House of Commons is thinking—on the assumption that we do represent outside opinion—if they tell us what they are going to stand for in these conferences.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I understand that the object of the hon. Gentleman's speech is to show that the Coalition did nothing and had no policy. Why, then, should he expect them to do anything?

Mr. Bowles: That is their dilemma. I say that they have not a policy. If they have, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should tell us what it is. I would ask him whether Lord Beaverbrook has gone to the United States with any instructions. If so, what are they? Is he concerned only with oil, because there is a rumour about that he has gone under an oily surface in order to discuss civil aviation. It seems that the Government have some plan, because I have recently seen a most marvellous aerodrome in course of erection, with runways five miles long. Messrs. Wimpey have the contract, and it must be one of great cost to the country. So there is a policy being worked out administratively, and the House of Commons is being kept in the dark. Is this aerodrome being built on Government contract by Messrs. Wimpey? When did the House consider another airport? When was the House told about it? I do not think it was. I would also like to know whether it is necessary to have another big airport when we have airports already in the country. Here is a considerable diversion of labour so far as civil aviation is concerned. In conclusion I would again ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to tell the House what Lord Beaverbrook is going to do.

Captain Peter Macdonald: The hon. Gentleman who raised this question apologised to the House for raising it on the last day of meeting of Parliament, but I am very glad he did so, because it would be wrong for this House to disperse for a long period without making one more effort to get some statement from the Government on their policy for civil aviation. I know that the Minister will say to-day that international civil aviation is an international question, on which the Government are not able to make a statement. I can understand that, but there is one thing I cannot understand, and that is why the Government have not yet proclaimed a policy in regard to our Dominions and our Colonial Empire, because that is within the narrow sphere which includes the

Dominions and ourselves. We were told by Lord Beaverbrook a good long time ago that he had come to a complete agreement with the Dominions, and certainly with Canada, on the future of civil aviation, and that it rested now with America to come into line or for us to find an agreement with America, and then with our other Allied countries.
I want the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to tell us what is happening in our Colonial Empire. We have a very large net-work of air bases throughout the African Colonies, as indeed throughout the world. I have just come back from a tour of the West Indies, where we have air bases. People from the different Colonial Governments are anxious to get on with their plans for civil aviation, which are vital to their work, and yet they are frustrated, right, left and centre, because they say they cannot get a policy out of the home Government. That must be altered, because it is not only holding up civil aviation in those Colonies, but holding up the whole development of the Colonies. I know that places like Gambia have schemes of Colonial development which they are very anxious to get on with, but they cannot do so until the question of the siting of air bases is decided. It has to be decided, unfortunately, by the Air Ministry, who cannot make up their minds. I want the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to tell us to-day what is the policy with regard to the African Colonies to-day. There, if nowhere else, we must get on with Colonial development and we cannot do anything until we have our air bases.
There is another point, the future of civil aviation vis-à-vis the Air Ministry. Personally, I wish to see civil aviation divorced from the Air Ministry at the earliest possible moment. I have not always been of that opinion, but, looking back, I see that the Air Marshals have clung to this service for all the years before the war, with the result that the history of British civil aviation has been one of frustration, procrastination and ineptitude. We have the best pilots in the world, but they are having to fly the worst machines, while their working conditions, in respect of pension and everything that goes with it, are not satisfactory. What amazes me is that we have ever been able to find enough pilots to take up that career at all.
I do not hold any brief for the British Overseas Airways Corporation as opposed to any other form of civil air transport, but I think B.O.A.C. should be given a chance to prove itself. It has not so far had an opportunity of proving itself as an operating concern. Almost from the moment it was formed, it was taken over by the Ministry authorities. It thought it was going to get free and be able to operate, but it had to come under Transport Command. It has done a very good job in the war. It has not had a free hand, but has had to do what it was told, and operate under military conditions and control. Before we condemn an organisation which was born out of tribulation, as B.O.A.C. was after the failure of Imperial Airways and British Airways, we ought to give it a chance to show what it can do. At any rate, we are committed to B.O.A.C. as the chosen instrument for a time. Before it is condemned, I wish to see it given an opportunity, divorced from Transport Command, to carry out its own programme.
What will be necessary in order that it may do so? First of all, it must have the pilots. I do not think we have any need to worry on that score, since we have the best pilots in the world. Then we shall want well-trained air crews and ground staff. We need not worry about them. There is one thing to which we have to pay more attention than we have done in the past, and that is accommodation on the ground when people come down at the end of their journey. We must have better rest houses and hotels. That aspect of civil aviation has been hopelessly neglected by us in the past, but it cannot be neglected in the future. In addition, the service must run to a time schedule and keep to it. That is not being done to-day. If I had time, I could give illustrations to show where the convenience, comfort and feelings of passengers travelling with B.O.A.C., for instance, are completely disregarded, and timetables are turned inside out over-night, without any explanation to the passengers. There is no excuse for that. People ought to be told if it is necessary, for military reasons, to change plans and upset timetables. I am sure people would make allowances and they would not, as they do to-day, be nursing strong and justifiable grievances against the company which it may take very many years after the war to live down. I do

not want to shut out the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and deprive him of an opportunity to reply to the Debate and I conclude by expressing the hope that he will give consideration to the points that have been raised.

Mr. Granville: I shall take up only two or three minutes, as like the hon. Member who initiated this Debate I want to hear the reply of the Minister. The House of Commons has been very patient with the Government over civil aviation. We have had trickling and treacly little Debates late in the day on odd points in regard to B.O.A.C., and various suggestions have been made from all quarters of the House on how to improve civil aviation, but we have never at any time had a declaration of policy from the Government on the future of civil aviation. In another place there has been a fairly full discussion replied to by the Lord Privy Seal. Some of my hon. Friends and I, before the Empire Conference took place in London, begged the Government to state their policy, but the only answer we received then was that we had to wait until the meeting of Dominion Prime Ministers had taken place in order that the Government could then discuss with the House of Commons something in the nature of a policy. The Government could not commit themselves, the House of Commons was not to be committed without being consulted. Well, we have had the meeting of the Dominion Prime Ministers, and I listened most attentively to-day at the announcement of Business to see if there was to be a real Debate on civil aviation when we met again after the Recess, but I am surprised to find that is not to be the case. With all deference to my right hon. and gallant Friend, who, I appreciate, understands the problem of civil aviation because of practical experience in the past and close contact with it, he is of course not in a position to-day to make a statement on behalf of the Government as to what is the major policy on civil aviation. The only Minister who I imagine is in a position to do that is at the present time in Washington—more "Wings over Washington." The Prime Minister said, in reply to me a day or so ago, that the Lord Privy Seal was in Washington not only for the purpose of discussing oil, but to discuss again the question of civil aviation, and also that the Cabinet here had discussed it for two hours.
I think we are greatly indebted to my hon. Friend for raising this matter again to-day, but I think we ought now to press for something definite from the Government. Are we to have a Minister for Civil Aviation, because with all due respect to the Lord Privy Seal and his astute judgment and sage advice on these and other problems if this matter is to be really planned in the future with practical vision and if we are to avoid the mistakes of the past—and goodness knows there are men in this House who know something about the mistakes of the past—it is a full-time Ministerial job, and cannot be fully dealt with administratively by a Minister who has to give his attention to other important Cabinet matters during this vital phase of the war. Therefore, I would plaintively ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he has a direction or minute from the Air Minstry or the War Cabinet which will enable him to tell us that the Government have now decided that this problem is vital and important; that we appreciate the great strides being made in America on this matter with civil air attachés for consultation being appointed, and in view of the switch over to civil production they are now going to appoint a full-time Minister for Civil Aviation.
I would also ask him if he can tell us whether the Lord Privy Seal, in his further discussions in Washington on this subject, which I imagine were begun with Dr. Adolph Berlé in London, is representing the British Commonwealth, or is he there—my hon. Friend below the Gangway raised the same point in a different way—to represent, as it were, Colonial cabotage position? Or is he there as the voice of the whole British Commonwealth and its future plans for a great network of civil aviation throughout the British Empire after the war? I would also like to ask him this: We were told there was to be an International Conference, that Russia was to be invited to this Conference. I believe the agenda for this Conference has been more or less agreed. If that is the case and if Colonial cabotage is to be our case on the agenda, instead of the British Commonwealth acting as one unit in negotiating our whole future of civil aviation, can he tell us if that is to be on the whole agenda for that Conference or will fresh questions be raised? Can he also tell us when the

Conference is to take place, and where? I hope it will be in this country, because, frankly, I am getting a little tired of this apparent one-way traffic of Ministers across the Atlantic. I think it would be all to the good to emphasise the unity of the Allied Nations if, occasionally, we had a Conference in this country, particularly as this country happens to be at the present time and will be after the war the greatest aircraft carrier or terminus in the world.
I do not want to take up more of the time of the House, but I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Are we going to appoint air attachés for civil aviation to our Embassies in the same way as America has recently announced? I would also like to emphasise what has been said by my hon. Friend opposite. What is happening about designs for civil prototypes after the war? Will we have them flying six years from now operationally which will be any good at all for trans-Atlantic and European traffic? Are we really making available the materials and man-power and research and technical development, particularly the designers—all of these things which are absolutely essential? Are we giving facilities to all those people who are working to produce these prototypes, so that we shall be in a position to fly British machines after the war, as a minimum over the all red route, or is it to be the case that again—and Heaven only knows the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows the implications of this—we are going to be entirely dependent on American civil aircraft to fly, not only on the trans-Atlantic but the European routes? Can he give us an assurance that whatever is decided upon at the International Conference, when it takes place, this country will be in a position to make its full contribution and not be left to bargain bases for aircraft with America? Can he assure the House that we will be in the position to turn over from war production to civil production and so avoid the great mistakes made in the past, and really give the British Empire the first proper chance it has had to develop its civil aviation fully?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): Hon. Members have many advantages over Ministers. One definitely is in a Debate such as this, when an hon. Member can,


in a sentence, mention some great question of major policy, and perhaps in three sentences mention four points of major policy, and then say "I would like answers on all these points." I was in two minds as to whether to base my remarks upon the opening sentences of the speech of the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague), when he said it was impossible to deal adequately with points raised to-day in the time available, or whether to fall back on the apology with which my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Tree) started his speech, when he apologised for the Debate to-day because he had nothing new or particularly striking to say in the matter. I came to the conclusion I would be quite frank and say that I allied myself with him so far as major policy is concerned.
Nevertheless I will endeavour to answer some of the questions put to me to-day. The hon. Gentleman who opened this Debate said he suspected that the reason for no statement on domestic policy was that the Government have not made up their mind. He is perfectly correct, and if he will refer to what the Prime Minister said on the 18th of last month he will find confirmation of that fact, when in reply to the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) the Prime Minister said:
The whole of this question is being continually studied. I remember that we had a long discussion only a little while ago—two hours or more—upon it in the Cabinet, which is proof that the matter was gone into in very considerable detail. Capable men are giving it much thought, but of course it takes, far and away, a back place compared with the conduct of the war."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1944; Vol. 402, c. 25.]
I am second to none in my feeling regarding the importance of post-war civil aviation, but nevertheless my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and Members of the Cabinet have got very many pressing matters to be decided, hour by hour, day by day, on foreign and on current war matters. [Interruption.] I listened patiently to every hon. Member who spoke, and I only hope that hon. Members will do me the courtesy of allowing me to answer their remarks.
The Prime Minister and his colleagues have many important and pressing matters, hour by hour, day by day, to settle. If they are to do justice to this

very important issue, it is only right that they should be able to take it at the time they consider fit, when they can give it the attention that its importance merits. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough said that the excuse is—to use his words—the fly-blown cliché, "There is a war on." I scarcely think that those words of his do real justice to the efforts of the War Cabinet, of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, and of those who are directing the major strategy of this war. Of course, there is a war on. I think he will agree with me that, so long as the war effort demands 100 per cent. of the time, the attention, and the resources of this country, all other issues must take a back place. It is those who have the responsibility of allocating our resources of man-power and our resources of material, as between the conduct of the war and the preparation for post-war, who must decide upon the proportionate allocation. I, for one, and, I think, the majority of the House, will appreciate that at the present time it is easy for those who have not got the responsibility for that direction and allocation to endeavour to assess the relative factors. But I do not think that their assessment is of as much value as that of those who carry the responsibility.
I was asked what progress was being made in the international field. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles), the hon. Member for Eye and one or two other hon. Members asked whether the Lord Privy Seal was continuing his discussion in Washington with Mr. Berlé. Yes, Sir. The House will be glad to know that the War Cabinet have authorised the Lord Privy Seal, while in Washington, on other matters, to resume conversations with Mr. Berlé on the international and civil aviation policy, and the intention is to take a stage further the various matters discussed during Mr. Berlé's visit to this country in the spring. It is also hoped to have discussions with the representatives of the U.S.S.R. and other Powers in the near future, preparatory to the international conference which is to be held on a broader basis.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend think that that is giving the matter the attention that its importance merits?

Captain Balfour: Yes, I do.

Mr. Bowles: Along what lines are they pursuing the talks? What is Lord Beaverbrook going to say? Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman know?

Captain Balfour: Lord Beaverbrook is going to endeavour to go more closely even than before into the various matters arising between the United States and ourselves, which will enable us to get a measure of agreement at that conference.

Mr. Granville: Does that mean that these are just incidental talks, or is the Lord Privy Seal accompanied by experts and a proper delegation?

Captain Balfour: The Lord Privy Seal has the facilities for communicating with this country by cable in a few hours, if he should wish to do so. He has certain experts with him, and the Government are in constant communication with him as regards his talks. I would make it quite clear that this is not, as it were, a by-product of the oil conversations, but a specific item that is going to be covered during the Lord Privy Seal's visit to Washington.

Captain P. Macdonald: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend ask Mr. Hull why he repudiated everything that Mr. Berlé said over here?

Captain Balfour: I am not going into that.

Mr. Tree: I would like my right hon. and gallant Friend to deal with a point that I made in the course of my speech. Is there any truth in the statement that a Russian delegation are in Washington to discuss the matter; and when they have finished there, are they coming here?

Captain Balfour: The Russian delegation have certainly gone to Washington, and we have been in communication with the Russian Government. Whether the arrangements are that they will come here, or go back to Russia first, I cannot say. That is a matter for the Russian Government.

Mr. Montague: This is a very important matter. I think the House should know what kind of mandate the Lord Privy Seal has. The Under-Secretary of State knows that both Australia and New Zealand have passed resolutions. By what authority does the Lord Privy Seal represent both this country and the Dominions?

Captain Balfour: Lord Beaverbrook does not represent the Dominions: he represents His Majesty's Government. He has knowledge of what measure of agreement was obtained at the Empire Conference last autumn, and no doubt he brings that knowledge to bear in his conversations with Mr. Berlé, which are aimed at smoothing the way towards an international conference, at which the parties will arrive with a large measure of agreement already on the major issues that are going to be discussed.

Mr. Montague: The Empire Board is ruled out?

Captain Balfour: I cannot say any more: I have given such information as I can. I want to turn to the domestic issue that has been raised, as to which Department civil aviation should stay under after the war. There is a unanimity of view in this House that civil aviation should leave the Air Ministry. Again, one can present a case for civil aviation leaving the Air Ministry, and a case against. The matter has not been decided by the Cabinet at present, and, beyond that, I regret that I cannot give any comfort. No doubt the Government will take full cognisance of and will recognise the views expressed in various quarters of the House to-day. One hon. Gentleman suggested that civil aviation should be handed over as soon as possible, but I do not think that there is any solid consensus of opinion that, in the middle of a war, you could take civil aviation away from the Air Ministry. I would like to make that quite clear. I do not think that in the middle of a war you could take it away, when the operations of civil aviation are directed to the war effort and are closely interwoven with those of the R.A.F. What is to happen after the war is at present an open question. As regards the question of private enterprise or State enterprise, of a chosen instrument or participation by existing surface transport interests, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough said that the Government maintained a stubborn silence. Whether the silence be stubborn or not, I am afraid that to-day I must continue that silence. As the Prime Minister said, the matter is under consideration by the Cabinet, and the Cabinet, to be quite frank, have not come to a decision. I think that, for reasons which are adequate having regard to the war situation


at the moment, I cannot say anything more on that. The hon. Gentleman also said that the United States are so far ahead and are making great plans for routes to be run. I can assure him that we, equally, are making great plans for routes to be run and we have a complete schedule of the routes which we think are desirable ones to be run over the world.

Mr. Granville: Routes to be run with American aircraft?

Captain Balfour: Not necessarily. Meanwhile, do not let us belittle our own efforts too much. The British Overseas Airways Corporation is doing a magnificent job of work. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) made some criticism, and talked about certain discomforts, schedules being put off and people kept waiting and other minor things. I do not know whether he was attacking the Air Ministry, but these are ordinary, minor matters to which the Corporation will pay attention. By and large, the Corporation is making a tremendous contribution, and, whatever may be the form of our post-war civil aviation structure, we are building up now a good solid foundation of pilots and mechanics.
I would like, if I may, to give two or three figures. I appreciate that hon. Members want to raise other subjects, but I am entitled, I think, to endeavour to answer everyone. Let me give these figures as a proof of our progress with the foundation of civil aviation in the post-war period. On 1st January, 1943, the route mileage of the Corporation was 49,000; on 1st January, 1944, it had risen to 72,000, with 25 services throughout different parts of the world. Passenger ton-miles, between January, 1942, and December, 1942, were 9,154,000; and, between January and December, 1943, 11,252,000. Freight has gone up by no less than 85 per cent.—all carried for the war—between 1942 and 1943. I give these figures as showing that the Corporation is doing very well and making a great contribution. It has grown from 109 aircraft on 1st January, 1943, to 140 aircraft at current date, many of these types being American, but some British, and I ask the House to give full credit to the Corporation for all it is doing. The hon. and gallant Member for Erdington (Group Captain Wright) asked for information as

to the progress of Brabazon types. There is a certain measure of progress, but I would be less than frank with him if I told him that it was as rapid as he, or, in one way, I, would like it to be. The limitation is larger military commitments, not as regards labour so much as drawing office staff. The aircraft industry have a comparatively small drawing office staff, but our military requirements must be met. Except for designated types of major importance, civil types are to have equal production priority with other designs. I am not going into a comparison between the York and the Tudor, but the Tudor is going on all right and one hopes that the first prototype may fly at the end of the year.

Mr. Tree: Could the Minister give the number of types?

Captain Balfour: No, I could not do that at present, but I saw the Brabazon I prototype last week at Bristol. An hon. Member asks if it would fly in six years. I sincerely hope it will, and I think it is going to be a very fine aircraft and one in which this country can take pride.
Regarding airport policy, the hon. and gallant Member for Erdington described three types, and, broadly, I agree with him as to those three types. I would like to disabuse the minds of some persons, who perhaps think that a terminal airport is a wonderful affair which is going to bring a great deal of prosperity to its district. It is an airport which is going to receive traffic for distribution over a wide area. We shall need only one or two terminal airports, and a number of emergency landing grounds for use in bad weather. I think the Government will have to assist in the provision of terminal airports, and that is being kept in mind. As regards the point raised by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles), about an aerodrome not far from London, let me assure my hon. Friend that that aerodrome is being made for military purposes—for military transport purposes. We see great new military transports coming along and we need a new airport near to the heart of Government. As and when, after the war, we decide what airports are to be used for civil purposes, all suitable airports and their possibilities will be surveyed and the best one chosen. When my hon. Friend asks me by what authority it is being done, let me assure him that it is


not being done by any civil authority, but under military authority, as it is to be a military airport for the war against Germany and against Japan, which involves long communications.
Another point concerned British Airways appointments and "dug-up Air Marshals," raised by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight. The Airways Corporation have the right to make their own appointments, and I think that, by and large, their appointments are pretty good, but, nevertheless, I like the picture given by the hon. and gallant Member for Erdington of the path of youth from the A.T.C. to post-war aviation.
The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight also asked why did not the Government declare a Commonwealth policy and what were we doing for the Dominions and Colonies. I am able to-day to make an announcement to the House, and that is that, at the invitation of the South African Government, one further step by the British Commonwealth in the consideration of civil aviation plans is to be taken. The Union Government of South Africa will shortly be issuing invitations to the United Kingdom and Governmental representatives of British territories in East, Central and South Africa to attend a conference which the Union Government are convening to discuss local air services and cognate matters concerning civil aviation on the Continent of Africa. We shall be glad to receive that invitation when it is received. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will realise that there have been earlier discussions which have led the Union Government to suggest this conference and to be good enough to issue the invitations for it, and he will see, therefore, that we have not been entirely idle.
I have done my best in a very short time to answer many of the detailed points. I am quite frank with the House in that I cannot give satisfaction on the major policy issues, but I have, I think, said something about the Brabazon types, about the consultations which Lord Beaverbrook is having in Washington, and, I hope, given some indication of the active expression of British Commonwealth co-operation in the future of our civil aviation. I hope these statements

will bring some measure of reassurance to hon. Members that the Government are very alive to their responsibilities in this matter, and are determined, in spite of criticism, which they do and should welcome, to go on to greater efforts.

JOINT PRODUCTION COMMITTEES AND WORKS COUNCILS

Mr. Mander: I desire to raise a question of which I gave notice some weeks ago, that of joint production committees and works councils. These are bodies that can play an exceedingly valuable part in our industrial organisation, and I am going to ask whoever replies as representing the Government to state the position fully as they see it and to say how far these bodies have been successful, the scale on which they are operating and what ideas the Government have for their continuance after the war. My personal interest in the matter is that I have been, it so happens, for 20 years chairman of one of these works councils, and during the last 15 years I have on a number of occasions introduced a Works Councils Bill with the object of making such bodies compulsory in industry and with a view to ventilating the subject. As it is, it is the compulsion of war that has brought in these bodies by general agreement between employers' organisations and the trades unions. According to information that was given to me in reply to a question the other day, there are in the engineering industry something like 4,565 committees in being, which appear to represent about two-thirds of all the firms employing over 150. There are also the pit committees operating in the mines, which have a most valuable part to play both now and in the future, and there are a large number of committees operating, as they have operated for years, as a result of private initiative.
A good deal of experience must have been gained during the last few years. We want to take stock of the position and find out what that experience has led to in this matter. I hope that the Government will consent, apart from explaining their views, to conduct some kind of inquiry in whatever way seems to them to be most fruitful of results. One method would be to ask the Trades Union Congress and the British Employers Confederation to go into the matter jointly and report to them. The Government


could do it themselves, and I have no doubt there are other, and perhaps more useful, methods of arriving at that result, but I only ask the Government to make the best inquiry they can in their own way.
There are mixed opinions among employers as to their experience. Some have found them to be useful and wish to continue them and others have had the contrary experience. I hope that we shall continue them permanently, in an amended form, in whatever way proves to be most generally acceptable to both sides. I want to deal with one or two difficulties which have been experienced. You cannot make these bodies succeed unless there is leadership—leadership on both sides. First of all there must be leadership from the employer. It ought to be part of the function of the managing director to pre-side over such bodies. That is very often done, I am informed, and he makes it clear from the top that he attaches very great importance to the functions of the committee and gives it all the weight of his authority. But it is not sufficient for the employer alone; he cannot do it without the co-operation of the other side. The trades unions might perhaps play a more active part in certain respects than they have in the past by helping with these bodies.

Sir Patrick Hannon: The hon. Member speaks of the managing director. Is he referring to the managing director of the joint production committee or to the managing director of an individual firm?

Mr. Mander: I am referring to the managing director of a company. Personally I am chairman of a company and I always preside at the works council. It is quite a usual thing to do. There have been complaints about the composition of these committees. It has been suggested that those who have been elected, in some cases, have not been all of the most constructively minded and co-operative type. [An HON. MEMBER: "Which side?"] No doubt that applies to both sides. I am dealing now with the employees' side. It has been suggested that they have perhaps been more political than industrial. The trades unions could be of very great assistance in this matter if they were to exercise the great powers of leadership and guidance which they have and look out for the most likely among their numbers who

could function effectively on these committees. I know from experience what an immensely valuable part trades unions can play in this as in other fields of industrial activity.
Another point is, that these bodies do not want to be too narrow in their outlook or in the work that they do. The actual designation of the work of the joint production committees is very narrow. They are asked to deal with things purely of production. But you have to deal with that in a very broad sense. Anything that has to do with the human comfort of the individual worker is a matter affecting production, and such things as health, welfare, canteens and meals, and the local application of national agreements, are essentially matters that ought to be discussed. One does not want to interfere with the national work of trades unions, but their local application is quite another matter. Some of these committees have very wisely gone outside their terms of reference and have dealt with absenteeism. That is a very suitable subject, because the workmen themselves are in a far better position to deal with absenteeism where it may exist on a small scale.

Mr. Glanville: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that production committees have nothing whatever to do with absenteeism and that it is entirely outside their scope?

Mr. Mander: My hon. Friend no doubt is right in referring to certain production committees, but I can assure him there are a number where they do deal with absenteeism, within my own experience, and I am suggesting that it is desirable that they should do so more than is actually the case at the present time. The wisest course for a body of this kind is to leave nothing out at all which is in any way relevant to the conduct of the business. You get the best results by that method. I do not think that it is necessary to have equal representation on these bodies, which are necessarily advisory, and therefore it is not necessary to have the same number of employers and employed. You ought to have representation not only of the management, but the foremen, and the office staff and the technical staff as well, so that every grade and class of worker in the factory can play his full part. If I may mention, as an example,


the practice in the committee over which I preside, we open the proceedings with a statement in confidence as to the work on which the company is engaged, the future prospects, any changes that are to be introduced, so as to take the representatives fully into our confidence and get their advice on any proposals that may be brought forward and to let them see the reasons for the action which is proposed to be taken, which might otherwise be entirely misunderstood and lead to a great deal of quite natural misunderstanding. It is usual for us to have the trade union secretary present not as a Member but in an advisory capacity where he plays a most valuable part, and, I venture to think that is a useful thing to do. Then we have a report from the benevolent fund, a night watchman's and time-keeping report——

Mr. Wootton-Davies: How many night-watchmen does the hon. Member keep?

Mr. Mack: We shall need one here, soon.

Mr. Mander: The question of pensions is gone through, the employees' shares, and matters of that kind, and then either side can put down any other subject which they feel will be useful for discussion. I suggest that one valuable function of these committees is to deal with works rules. In a factory you can only get government by consent of the governed and it is essential, if the rules are to be obeyed, that those most closely affected by them should have a part in shaping and approving them. I put that forward as a useful function of these committees. Furthermore, when it is necessary to have dismissals or to work short time—before anything of that kind is done—the works committees can very usefully give their views as to the method which they think would be the least burdensome to their members. I sincerely hope that in view of the White Paper policy of the Government there will be no necessity for this in the future and that there will be full employment for all. But if there were some mishaps and that did not happen, the workers certainly ought to be consulted.
I would like to say a word about the disciplinary side. With us, whenever a

worker is brought up before the management for any reason, he is entitled to be accompanied by his shop steward, not to take part in the discussions but so that he may go back and report that the decision—whether he agrees with it or not—was taken on industrial grounds, on the merits of the case, and for no other reason whatsoever. I venture to think that is a useful safeguard. It also seems to me desirable that where a workman is dismissed for some offence, he should have the right of appeal—of course the management have the final decision—to an advisory body, either the works committee or some special committee of it, so that his case can be fully gone into by a jury of his fellows.

Mr. Glanville: What is a trade union for?

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I do not know how it is that the hon. Member who raised this subject got in at this stage. I want to ask if this is really a subject to raise on a day like this—a general ramble round the whole question of what should happen in production committees and works juries and all the rest of it. What has that to do with any particular question to which attention should be called on the Adjournment?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): That is not a question of Order at all. The hon. Member is quite within his rights but, since the point has been raised, I hope the hon. Member will be as brief as possible, in order that other hon. Members may have a chance of speaking.

Mr. Gallacher: The subject which we wish to raise was to have been taken over an hour ago. How is it that the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) was called when he withdrew his name?

Mr. Mander: I ought to say that I had the Adjournment yesterday but at the special request of the authorities I agreed to take it to-day instead, although I wanted to do so yesterday. I have been called because Mr. Speaker decided to call me to-day. The matter is one to which I attach great importance. It affects millions of people all over the country and if the hon. Member cannot and will not contain himself, I shall go on for another two hours.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member can go on as long as he likes. I do not care.

Mr. Mander: I am sure my hon. Friend will show a little indulgence.

Mr. Gallacher: The Secretary of State for War has to go away in an hour.

Mr. Stokes: He can put off his engagement; he always does.

Mr. Mander: I think we shall get on if I am allowed to proceed.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: The hon. Member is wasting time now.

Mr. Mander: When I was interrupted, I was dealing with the question of appeals to the joint works committee in disciplinary cases. I have always found this valuable in avoiding any possiblity of a feeling of victimisation. If a manager or foreman knows that he must explain the reasons for his action before a jury of his fellow workers, he will take very good care that the reasons are of a purely industrial kind. That is a useful safeguard, I think. Then there is the question of how the councils are to report back to their Members, because there are difficulties about that. There are three methods which I can see. You can put it up on a notice board, which is not very effective; you can hold a special meeting of your constituents, as it were, which is quite a valuable way; you can also do it by publication of the minutes in the works magazine. Both these last two are useful ways. I should like to call attention in this matter to what is being done in the United States. The United States Production Board have a considerable number of what the call labour management committees, and they publish an official weekly journal known as the "Labour and Management News." I have some copies here. It shows the tremendous amount of importance attributed to the war production drive by a determined government.
I put a Question the other day to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Production with regard to works relation committees. There are seven in existence at the present time and I want to ask my hon. Friend whether he does not think that the work of these public relations committees cannot in some respects be brought before the joint production committees. I see it is stated:

The object of the Centres is to encourage the wider adoption of the works relations system, whereby industrial workers are provided with a regular flow of information about the work on which they are employed, its importance in the chain of production, and the purposes for which the products of industry are used in the theatres of war or other spheres of essential national activity.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1944; Vol. 402, c. 319.]
I hope my hon. Friend will consider whether there cannot be some link-up there. I was going to say a word——

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member shows a lot of consideration.

Mr. Mander: I am going to say a word in conclusion which may perhaps meet with some approval from my hon. Friend.

Mr. Gallacher: No approval from me.

Mr. Mander: Well, I shall continue——

Mr. Gallacher: Mr. Deputy-Speaker told me that he was allowing the hon. Member to go on because he was only to speak for a short time.

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Mander: I think it is generally agreed that we and Soviet Russia have a good deal to learn from each other, and they have in the matter of works councils developed certain ideas from which we can choose something useful for ourselves. On the other hand, they have much they can learn from us. They have certainly developed a type of democracy in industry, whereas too often here democracy stops at the factory wall, In my view it ought to be brought inside. I believe that these joint production committees can be, and should be, a valuable permanent part of our industrial life, worked out in our own thoroughly British way. It is a matter of trial and error. We have made mistakes but we shall improve, and I am asking the Government now to make inquiries and to do all they can to give all possible encouragement to making these bodies a permanent part of the industrial life of this country.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Production (Mr. Garro Jones): I hope hon. Members opposite will possess themselves in patience for a little longer on the reflection that I am sure they will realise that this is a subject of great importance to many millions of British workers. While Members no doubt feel keenly about the particular subject they


wish to raise, this is not a matter which should be hurried over, or passed over lightly. At the same time, in deference to their point of view, I have risen perhaps a little earlier than I intended, and I hope other Members who wanted to speak on this matter will not complain.

Sir P. Hannon: No.

Mr. Garro Jones: The House will be quick to recognise that the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) was speaking about something of which he has particular knowledge. It might have been thought that on this comparatively new subject it would be hard to find any Member who had long experience but the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton was a pioneer in establishing these committees. He has been chairman of one of them for close on 20 years and, therefore, his views on this subject are entitled to be heard, and heard with patience. It is true that a great development of these bodies has taken place in the last two or three years. Following upon an agreement signed by the Ministry of Supply with the Royal Ordnance Factories and six of the large trade unions, the Allied Employers' Confederation signed a similar agreement with the engineering trade unions. Since that time close on 5,000 of these joint production committees have been established, and if I could give the House the number of workers who were covered by them I am sure they would recognise that it was an impressive figure. In dealing with the growth of these bodies I would like to say that it has been much greater in Southern England than in Northern England and Scotland—immeasurably greater. I believe that the North of England and Scotland will, in the long run, be losers through that fact.

Mr. Wootton-Davies: Is it not a fact that taking a line North of Birmingham, industry tends to be in smaller units than in the Southern part of the country? Is not that probably due to that fact?

Mr. Garro Jones: I would not deny that that is a factor in the comparative slowness in forming these bodies, but it is by no means the only one. The Supply Ministers and the Ministry of Labour would like to see a greater impetus in the formation of these bodies in

Northern England and in Scotland. It is as well to bear in mind that there has been no compulsion, other than the compulsion of the common purpose, in this war, and the House will feel that the scale of this movement is a significant feature of our war production effort. I want to say a word or two about the question of the usefulness of these bodies. There are still a few people who doubt their use, and particularly the value of their direct contribution to the problems of management. Well, I hope these pessimists will not be disappointed if I say that the Government do not share their doubts. While success has not attended the labours of every committee, the great majority of them have served well the common cause and whatever their contribution in the form of technical suggestions has been their usefulness in a variety of important matters is fully recognised.
For instance, they are a valuable channel for the dissemination of information about changes of programme. They have been extremely helpful in such measures as fuel economy, campaigns for salvage and so on within the works, the prevention of fire and accidents, and measures to reduce losses of production through enemy attacks—an extremely important element of their work at the present time in the London area. While, in a few cases, there may have been a tendency on the part of these committees to work on antagonistic lines—the workers' side considering it to be their mission to criticise the management and the management perhaps looking suspiciously and rather impatiently on the suggestions of the workers—there has been, on the whole, a fine and useful spirit of co-operation shown between the two sides. They have done an immense amount to remove many avoidable causes of friction, to provide answers to hosts of questions, to the "whys" and the "why pots" which arise in factories and which, if not answered, are a potent cause of friction. Friction, of course, means waste. Hon. Members who have read the recent survey by Mr. Seebohm Rowntree, who is a pioneer investigator, and who often strikes the valuable vein of truth, may recall that he said—I am speaking from memory—that the greatest single cause of waste in industry is lack of co-operation between management and workers. Therefore, I say that these committees, now such a large part


of our war production effort, are very important features. The unity of purpose which has been established during the war has found its organic expression at the top in the National Production Advisory Council, which advises the Minister of Production and the Supply Ministers, and the Joint Consultative Committee, which advises the Minister of Labour. These joint production committees, or works councils, as they are sometimes called, are an expression of the same spirit at the factory level.
I conclude my remarks by saying something about the future, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton asked me to do. Although most of this machinery has been established only for the duration of hostilities, it would be lamentable if the spirit embodied in it were to evaporate at the end of the war. The task of reconstruction will need all the collaboration we can get, and in my view we simply cannot afford to dispense with this spirit of collaboration after the war. Certainly we do not intend to let it go at the end of the war. The Government regard it as desirable the whole consultative and co-operative machinery in industry should be now under the active consideration of both sides in industry. The future of these committees in the post-war period is not a matter for the Ministry of Production but for the Ministry of Labour. We are concerned only with war production.
The Minister of Labour has authorised me to tell the hon. Member that he is already in active consultation with the Trades Union Congress, with the Employers Federation and with branches of industry with a view to arriving at proposals for the maintenance of this machinery of collaboration in the post-war period. Consultations, of course, will be much wider than the joint production committees and the works councils. The end in view is quite a simple one, though one would not think so, judging by the difficulty in bringing it about. It is increased collaboration, increased efficiency and mutual understanding of each other's point of view. It is undoubtedly a great aim which, if fully achieved, would bring a rich reward. My right hon. Friend and I feel that the pursuit of that aim is fully worthy of the zeal and the zest of responsible leaders in industry on both sides.

"DAILY WORKER" (WAR CORRESPONDENT)

Mr. Driberg: The continued refusal of the Government to accredit a war correspondent to the "Daily Worker" raises a somewhat broader political issue than might at first sight appear. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for War for coming here to deal with it personally, though the dislocation of the time-table, and an important engagement which I gather he has to keep, will oblige us to be brief. Its importance is indicated by the fact that no fewer than 50 hon. Members of this House signed a petition, or an expression of opinion, addressed to the Secretary of State urging that a war correspondent should be accredited to this newspaper, including Members of such diverse views as the hon. Members for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter), Leigh (Mr. Tinker), Bridgwater (Mr. Bartlett) and North Cumberland (Mr. Roberts), who are notably not sympathisers with the Marxist doctrines which the "Daily Worker" propagates. There were also very strong representations from a remarkably large number of trade unions, including that to which I have the honour to belong, the National Union of Journalists.
The "Daily Worker" is a national newspaper in every ordinary sense of the phrase. The definition of a national newspaper does not depend on its political outlook or on the size of its circulation. I think the circulation of the "Daily Worker" is, actually, somewhat smaller than that of "The Times" and somewhat larger than that of the "Manchester Guardian." It is about 100,000, but I believe it is read by a very much larger number of people than that—perhaps 500,000. In other ways it is treated as an ordinary national newspaper. It enjoys the usual wholesale and retail distributive facilities, it enjoys the usual public relations facilities provided by Government Departments to all newspapers, and so forth. But at the height of the invasion of Europe, this newspaper, which campaigned so long and so energetically for the opening of the second front—a campaign with which some of us agreed and others disagreed—is debarred from being represented on that invasion front. At a time like this, the heart and guts of a newspaper lie in its reports from its own war corre-


spondent at the front. In the first days of the invasion it was not so bad for the "Daily Worker." The war reports were pooled and each paper was able to draw what it wanted from the pooled reports of the correspondents. Later, however, as more correspondents were able to get across and more facilities were afforded, the pool arrangement came to an end and now each of the other papers is represented by its own men—in some cases by a large number of its own men. Any newspaper man, and perhaps any attentive reader of newspapers, will tell you that not even the best agency service can compensate a newspaper for the lack of its own war correspondent.
Why discriminate in this way against a newspaper which is wholeheartedly supporting the war effort, whatever you may think of its political views? Quite obviously this is purely political discrimination. This fact is obvious from the answer that the Secretary of State gave on 18th January, to which he referred us back more recently, an answer which boiled down to the allegation that the "Daily Worker" would not be allowed a war correspondent because members of the Communist Party could not be trusted with secrets. Men and women of all political views and opinions are serving in the Forces. There are millions of men, perhaps, with no special political views, or Conservatives, or Labour men, or Liberals, and among them are thousands of Communists. No one suggests that you could not trust a member of the Communist Party who is a sergeant in the Army or an officer in the Navy. No one suggests that you should take his uniform away and send him home because he might gain possession of some secret or other, which no doubt many people serving in an ordinary capacity in the Services can get possession of. Communists are doing all sorts of highly confidential war work. Professor Haldane is engaged on secret scientific research in connection with war inventions. The only Communist in this House has, I believe, attended many of our Secret Sessions, and I do not think anyone would presume to suggest that there has been a leakage of secret information through him. Really the position is quite anomalous and ridiculous, especially in view of the full and close friendship which I am happy to say

this country now enjoys with the Soviet Union, a nation organised in accordance with the very political principles which the "Daily Worker" exists to further. No one suggests that Communists are not to be trusted as Allies. No one suggests that Premier Stalin ought to have been barred from Teheran.
I hope the Secretary of State will not revert to the isolated case of Mr. Spring-hall, which he mentioned in his reply in January, together with the name of one other member or former member of the Communist Party. It is highly illogical and unfair to condemn a whole party for actions taken by one or two individuals in it—actions which have been strongly repudiated by the party concerned. That kind of argument, if it were legitimate to use it at all, would cut both ways. There are far more men of the extreme Right in politics whom it has been found necessary to detain under 18B, than there are of the extreme Left. But no one would suggest that any ordinary national newspaper, however extremely to the Right its editorial views might be, should be deprived of the services of a war correspondent because there are one or two extreme Right-wingers in Brixton Prison. It would be absurd. Recently, as I mentioned in my question, Kemsley Newspapers were fined £100 for a deliberate and wilful breach of the security Regulations by publishing news which might be of assistance to the enemy, but I would not dream of suggesting that the "Daily Sketch" should be deprived of its war correspondents at the front and that their accreditation should be cancelled.
On every ground of justice, common sense and democratic principle I feel that the Cabinet should reconsider this matter. We talk about the freedom of the Press. It is one of those clichés which we use rather glibly. I like to try to think out the meaning of these clichés before using them. To my mind "freedom of the Press" means not only freedom for editors and journalists to write and print what they want to; it also means, perhaps primarily, freedom for the readers of the Press, freedom for the ordinary man to buy the newspaper he wants and to find in it true news and fair comment in accordance with the political views he favours. The readers of the "Daily Worker" are comparatively few in number, but they are a highly


politically conscious lot. Hon. Members and Ministers who are interested in production will know very well that many of them occupy key jobs in factories and have done an enormous amount to further production in those factories. It will hearten them tremendously if they can read in their own favouruite paper despatches from their own war correspondent at the front. I gather that this is a Cabinet decision and that the right hon. Gentleman himself is not alone responsible for it, but I hope that he will be able to tell us that he is going to discuss it again in the august company which he keeps.

Mr. Gallacher: I am certain that no one, I care not how capable he may be in forensic argument, could, with any ordinary body of people, provide any grounds of justification for this refusal to allow a war reporter to the "Daily Worker." Only the fact that an unjustified prejudice exists, makes it possible for the refusal to be continued. If it were not for a rotten and widespread prejudice, it would be impossible for a Minister or the Government to get away with such a piece of political discrimination. When the Minister was asked a Question about this, he made a statement, out of his deep ignorance of the Communist Party and its constitution, that a member of that party could not be trusted not to give away secrets to the party. In order to try to provide some justification for that assertion, he brought in the case of Springhall, who is serving seven years in prison because he did not let the party know what he was doing. If the party had known what he was doing, he would have been stopped straight away and he would never have been in gaol. The case was heard in camera, but sufficient came out to let us know that Springhall went to the flat of a young woman, and that this woman had a friend with her. He sat in the room with the young woman with the door partly open, and talked to her about this, that and the other, and the other person was taking notes of what he said. He is in prison because he was an utter fool. If the party had known what was going on he would have been stopped. The fact remains that nobody in the party knew what Springhall was doing.
The Minister uses that case to try to buttress up a statement that a member of the party must report secrets to the

party. There never was such nonsense. I am here as a representative of the party. What is my responsibility to the party? It is to see that in this House I give the greatest service to my constituents in line with party policy. If I attended a Secret Session and gave away information to anyone, is it not clear that I would immediately endanger my position and, therefore, my value to the party and my constituents? If any member of the party dared to come to me and ask me what happened at a Secret Session, and I reported such a member to the leadership, he would be expelled from the party, or at any rate seriously dealt with. I have been at many Secret Sessions. Is it not strange that the only paper that has been called in question for reporting matters at a Secret Session is a Conservative paper? There has never been any suggestion of the "Daily Worker" having any knowledge of what has happened in a Secret Session. Suppose the "Daily Worker" did get something from a Secret Session; immediately all eyes would be turned on me. Yet there are Conservative journals that were before the court and fined, and a representative of the family which runs them sits in this House, but special attention was not paid to him or to the papers. The ban on the "Daily Worker" is an utterly impossible and unjustifiable decision. It is unspeakably mean, and no one could suggest that there is anything manly about the decision. The "Daily Worker" is the one paper in the country that is maintained by the working-class.

Mr. Hynd: They are all provided by the working-class.

Mr. Gallacher: All wealth comes, of course from the labour of the workers, but the Press is in the hands of millionaires, and lords of one kind and another, and is run in their interests. The only national daily paper that is maintained by the pennies, sixpences and shillings of the working-class is the "Daily Worker." It is the only national daily newspaper that is maintained by the working-class, and it is refused a correspondent on grounds that cannot possibly be justified.
When the Prime Minister yesterday said that a good picture was being given in the Press of the fighting front in Normandy, I interjected and mentioned the "Daily Worker." I said it could give a fine picture if it had a chance. The Prime Minister answered:


Yes, I have no doubt."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd August, 1944; Vol. 402, c. 1469.]
He went on to say that lots of things were happening which would no doubt cause the hon. Gentleman pleasure, meaning myself, and the paper of which I am an admirer. How is it possible, on the basis of such a childish answer as the Minister has given, that the Communists cannot be trusted not to report secrets to the party, not to understand that the maddest thing that the Communist Party could do would be to put its members on local and national administrative bodies, or as war correspondents or in any other position, where they could be suspected or distrusted? The one sure and certain way to build up the party is to put into this House, on local administrative bodies and at the war fronts representatives who can be trusted by their fellow members or fellow reporters. That is the one guarantee for the well-being of the party. Our war correspondent in Abyssinia was recognised to be one of the finest war correspondents ever to have been at any front and he was the man selected by the war correspondents to represent all of them and to speak for all of them.
This is abominable nonsense. I do not understand how a man can get up and talk such silly senseless twaddle on such a serious question. Please understand that my party is a serious political party and that we have representatives on many county councils and local councils. We have had war correspondents in Algiers and in Abyssinia, apart from this foolish fellow who has been referred to. I do not know how to speak of such a fellow that has got into such a mess because of his weakness. He did not let the party know. He was deliberately hiding these things from the party and from his associates. Show me in this House, in any county council or local council, or on any of the war fronts, among any of the men who have been with the guerrillas, or in Yugoslavia, or Poland, facing hardships, difficulties and dangers, a man about whom anybody could turn round and say that he was a Communist and could not be trusted to take his share and to bear his part of the burden. Please let the Minister, if he is going to deny us a war correspondent, be manly enough to get up and say that it is because he

does not like our politics and that it is political discrimination. Do not get up and make the pitiful answer that the Minister has made to our application.

Mr. Raikes: It is only fair to make it plain from the start that the decision over the "Daily Worker" is not a decision by the Secretary of State for War but, as the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) quite fairly described it, a decision by the War Cabinet, of whom the Prime Minister is the head. Therefore, whatever the rights and the wrongs of it may be, it is not simply a question of the Secretary of State for War having adopted an idiotic and foolish attitude.

Mr. Mack: But he supports it.

Mr. Raikes: Of course he supports it, and I think wisely so, as I propose to show in a moment or two. I think I can carry the House with me some way on this matter. I think we would all agree that military security is paramount. I think we should all agree that the "Daily Worker" is the propaganda medium of the Communist Party. I think I shall carry with me on that point the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). I think we should agree also, that, although the despatches of a war correspondent may be sincere, any military correspondent is in a position to find out secrets of a vital nature, and that even if they are not actually published in the Press he can pass them on to his editorial committee. Those things are obvious.
Now we come to the question of the "Daily Worker" itself. Both the hon. Member for Maldon and the hon. Member for West Fife—I see that the hon. Member for West Fife is preparing to pounce on me in a moment or two—referred to the case of Springhall. The case was taken in camera, so that the whole picture cannot be given, but I think it is public knowledge, although observations have not been made about it in the course of the Debate, that Springhall received from a military captain the information which he had. I understand, the captain passed on that information to Springhall because Springhall was an organiser in the Communist Party. I know nothing about what Springhall was doing in a flat with a lady.

Mr. Gallacher: That is absolutely incorrect, because, as organiser of the Communist Party, Springhall was committing a crime against the party in dealing with such a man.

Mr. Raikes: The hon. Member has borne out my point that Springhall was an organiser of the Communist Party. Whether he acted properly or improperly is another matter. The information was given to Springhall by an officer who was a member of the Communist Party, and who did so because Springhall was a Communist Party organiser. I am not suggesting that Springhall of necessity acted as the Communist Party would have desired. I am making the first point, which I think is of some importance, that there is a party a member of which serving in His Majesty's Forces feels justified, in certain circumstances, in imparting what should be vital secrets to another member of that party.

Mr. Gallacher: But Conservatives do that.

Mr. Raikes: I do not know of any case in which a Conservative officer has passed on information to an organiser of the Conservative Party on the ground that the organiser was someone who could receive special information in that capacity. I have carried that point only so far, but I now want to carry it a step farther. It may be said that although it may be deplorable that vital information should be passed on to an organiser of an outside body, yet provided that the body is absolutely pure and beyond reproach, very little harm, possibly, has been done. Therefore, it might well be that the risk could be taken in regard to that organisation.
Let us turn for a moment to the "Daily Worker" itself. If, in the course of a great war, you turn your coat once, that is perhaps understandable; if you turn your coat twice, it becomes a little bit doubtful; but any organisation or paper which has turned its coat politically three times in regard to this war and in the course of this war lays itself open to certain doubts. Let me remind the House of the facts. Here is what the "Daily Worker" said on 4th September, 1939:
It is a war that can and must be won, and the people can win it. Fascism and its friends have brought this war upon us.

One month later, the war still going on, this is what we have:
The continuance of the war in Western Europe under these conditions is now a deadly menace to the interests of the people in all countries. We demand that negotiations be immediately opened for the establishment of peace in Europe.
One month after the war against Fascism had started. During that month a certain country, which was not Great Britain, took certain rather unexpected steps. Outside influence could have been the only cause of the "Daily Worker" eating its own words after one month.

Mr. Driberg: If the hon. Member is talking about past records of newspapers in the war against Fascism, may I point out to him that many of the newspapers have a far blacker record than the "Daily Worker," and if he is going to drag up the past like that, then surely they should be deprived of their war correspondents?

Mr. Raikes: Is the hon. Member suggesting there is one newspaper, Conservative, Liberal or Labour, which supported the war when the war broke out in September, 1939, which at any period since then has turned round and said that this war is nonsense and that we have to make peace?

Mr. Driberg: No, but the Kemsley Press offered space to Goebbels to state his case.

Mr. Raikes: Does the hon. Member suggest, and let him be accurate—we may as well have a little accuracy—that in any period since the war broke out in September, 1939, the period with which I am dealing, Goebbels or anybody else has been offered space in the Kemsley Press or any other Press? I demand an answer.

Mr. Driberg: The hon. Member was unfortunate or unwise enough to use the phrase "The war against Fascism"—which has been going on a good deal longer than that.

Mr. Mack: Since the beginning of the war have not many papers of the Right backed up the policy of Franco, and those who are friends of Germany at the present time? What has the hon. Member to say to their having war correspondents?

Mr. Raikes: The hon. Member for Maldon said I was unfortunate enough to refer to the war against Fascism. I used


that phrase simply because I was quoting from the description of the war, after it had started, in the "Daily Worker," and I think that even the meanest intelligence might have grasped that, therefore, we are dealing with a war which was already in operation at that time.

Mr. Pritt: Would the hon. Member suggest that the "Daily Telegraph," for example, should be deprived of its war correspondent because in the latter part of 1939, and the early part of 1940, it clamoured for war against the Soviet Union, which was destined to tear the guts out of the German army for us?

Mr. Raikes: I merely observe, in passing, in regard to that, that since this war had been entered into in 1939 in defence of small nationalities, any criticism against any country at any period of the war that was engaged in aggression against small nationalities appears to me to have been justified morally at the time when such suggestions were made.

Mr. Gallacher: There is this important point. The "Daily Worker" was for the war against Fascism. In the month to which the hon. Member refers a book was published for American circulation by a member of the Government, Lord Lloyd, with a preface by the then Foreign Secretary, Lord Halifax, protesting before high heaven that this was not a war against Fascism, that they had no intention of making it a war against Fascism and that the Government had not done so. That is why the "Daily Worker" took the attitude it did take.

Mr. Raikes: It is rather interesting. If the reason why the "Daily Worker" changed over between September and October was a book written by Lord Lloyd, with a preface by Lord Halifax, they might at least have explained that reason, instead of making it coincide with the partition of Poland between Russia and Germany. I have finished with 1939. I must be brief, but I have been interrupted, and I think the picture has to go just a stage further. We have in a certain thing we have received to-day, "Gagged by Grigg", a most moving statement from the Editor of the "Daily Worker":
Every day we work with might and main to do the job expected of us, conscious of our duty to the men at the front.

In May, 1940, we turn to the "Daily Worker" again. This was the time when our men in France were facing an even harder task than they are facing now. They were forced to retreat with the enemy on every side and this was the effort which the "Daily Worker" sent out to our people in France to read:
The rulers have nothing but fear of a people's victory. If you are one of the common people, whether German, French or British, there will be no victory for you, only death, suffering and starvation.
That was on 20th May, 1940. That was what was said to our men fighting in France. On 22nd May, 1940, it was stated:
The 'Daily Worker' has repeatedly declared that this war is not in the interests of the people.
Then times changed, and someone else was attacked, and came into the war, and the "Daily Worker" changed, not because Britain's task was greater, or a less easy one, but because someone outside Britain was attacked. My concluding observation is simply this. If you happen to be dealing in ordinary life with a repentant gentleman, who has been convicted of stealing some of your money, you might, if you are a Christian, give him another job, but you would give him a job that kept him rather a long way away from your own private safe. What you happen to be dealing with is a so-called repentant newspaper, which in the course of this war at one period was engaged in propaganda, of which I say quite deliberately that if it had done anything—and mercifully it did nothing—would have weakened the morale of our people at home and of our Fighting Forces abroad. If it is repentant I think that, under present conditions, the Government are wise to give it the chance once again of being published, and showing signs of its repentance, but not to give it an opportunity of discovering secrets which might, if it changed its mind again, affect not mere money or capital, but the lives and blood of the men who are fighting for us.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I am glad to see one member of the Liberal Party here, because I propose to make a Liberal speech. The principles of Liberalism very largely made this country great. When they are abandoned, this country will cease to be great, just as when they were abandoned by the Liberal Party


the Liberal Party was almost completely destroyed. I agree with my hon. Friend who has just spoken, that the principle of military security must come first in this matter, but one must also say a word about the political implications. As a Liberal for the moment, the political implications of this ban will be two. In the first place, the circulation of the "Daily Worker" is likely to go up by 100,000. In the second place, I think the membership of the Communist Party will very largely increase. Not even the advantage of a war correspondent in Normandy is likely to equal that of a good grievance. I am very strongly anti-Communist in my views, being for the moment a good Liberal, and I oppose the ban as likely to strengthen the Communist Party and its organ.
The Secretary of State for War is not a Conservative. On the contrary, he is a promoted civil servant and I give him credit for that. As a keeper of the political seraglio for so many years he has long since had his political opinions carefully removed. But the trouble is that he has the reputation of being a Conservative—an honour which he does not deserve. Every time he imposes a ban against the "Daily Worker'" he loses Conservatives some votes in the country, which is most unjust.
I fully accept the view that this is, in fact, not a political decision, but that the Secretary of State for War was persuaded by his security people to impose this ban. I do not want to say a word against our security organisation. They have a very thankless task, and they perform a very necessary function, but it is very important that the great offices of State should not be ruled by the security organisation. I have had some opportunity of seeing their judgments about individuals known to me personally but with whom I did not agree politically, and I consider that very often their judgment is bad. So far from being ruled by them, I think the Secretary of State might well take a Leaf out of the book of the individual who said.
God bless those artful folk who ingeniously contrive to add up two and two and make the answer M.1.5.
One cannot be ruled by these too-simple men.
The Communist Party has a record, which my hon. Friend the Member for

South East Essex (Mr. Raikes) has clearly and punctiliously exposed to the House. I agree with his general view of the Communist Party. It is true that when certain hon. Members, no doubt with perfect sincerity, were running a campaign for "a people's Government for a people's peace," at our critical period in 1940, the Communists, in the main, were concerned that the other people should win. That confuses the simple men in M.1.5: they think that the Communist Party is unreliable. But the Communist Paryt is the most reliable party in this country. One can always tell what they will do. There are no exceptions, except for a certain gentleman, about whom I have heard for the first time to-day, who was led away by his amorous instincts. They change sides with meticulous consistency. They are politically most reliable. One can tell at once what they are going to do. This time they are on our side. I am all for taking allies where I find them, whether they consist of Communists or of others who are prepared to help the war effort. So I am not altogether convinced that any real harm would come, in this particular instance, from allowing the "Daily Worker" to have a war correspondent, subject to one condition. That is, that he should be carefully investigated by the security organisation, and judged on his merits as a man. No general and absolute ban should be imposed. If they do not like the man who is put up, let them reject him.
But I feel that the principles of Liberalism are at stake. I, for one, am prepared, being a good Conservative, to try to preserve the principles of our Constitution, which have made us great. If we go on this line, there is no telling where it may lead us to. It may be that the Communists will increase their Parliamentary representation some day—I do not know: they may do so—and if they get the idea that it is legitimate to discriminate on political lines, however mistaken that idea may be, it may happen that they would make even greater departures from the principles of Liberalism than the Secretary of State and his august superiors have done on this occasion.

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): As my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Raikes) said, the hon. Member for Maldon


(Mr. Driberg) made a very studiously moderate presentation of his case. I caught myself wondering whether it was an instance of fellow-feeling making us wondrous kind; the fellow-feeling arising from the fact that we were both in a china shop yesterday, when a bull—perhaps I should say a Papal bull—from Ipswich got loose.

Mr. Pritt: That is all right so far.

Sir J. Grigg: I think that is about the lot. Perhaps the House will bear with me if I go back to the original decision in this case. The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) put down a Question to me for 18th January. On that date he was not in his place to ask the Question, so my answer was circulated as a written answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT. From that day until the hon. Member for Maldon asked his Question on 27th June, although there had been abundant opportunities for raising the matter, the only mention in this House was a Question asked by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), on 2nd March, to which the Prime Minister answered:
The decision to which my hon. Friend refers in this Question was not a decision of the Secretary of State for War, but a decision of His Majesty's Government. The ruling covers all three Services, and there is no intention of changing it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1944; Vol. 397, c. 1572.]
But a good deal occurred outside. It is true that the Press, as a whole, ignored the matter, practically the only notice, apart from the "Daily Worker," being occasional references in that paper which tries to make Nonconformist Liberalism look as much like Communism as possible. But the "Daily Worker" was a host in itself. It proceeded to organise a campaign that has never quite stopped. It has had a reference nearly every day. It has represented the decision as a personal act of spite on my part, although my original answer made it quite clear that it was a concerted decision on the part of His Majesty's Government. Every day it has produced a list of bodies that have sent in protests against the decision, and, from the unanimity of the phrasing of the protests, one can surmise that they have been organised by the "Daily Worker" itself, or by the Communist Party, of which it is the official organ.
The culmination of the campaign is the pamphlet "Gagged by Grigg" referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Essex. To that I have two alternative defences, as the lawyers say. First, they have not been gagged, because they are perfectly at liberty to get anything they like from the agencies—there are agencies over there, and the great majority of the papers of this country, I should say, get their war news from the agencies. I know that the hon. Member for Maldon said that that was not the same thing, but let us get it right—they have not been gagged. Alternatively, they were not gagged by Grigg, but by all the Members of the War Cabinet.

Mr. Mack: Does the right hon. Gentleman try to exculpate himself from that decision? Does he not agree with it, and support it?

Sir J. Grigg: Certainly I agree with it and support it. But the whole campaign has represented this as an act of personal spite on my part, and anyone reading this document will find every other Government Department lauded and represented as being as helpful as they can, consistent with the barbarism of the Secretary of State for War.

Mr. Pritt: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us on what date the matter first came before the Cabinet?

Sir J. Grigg: I cannot tell that.

Mr. Pritt: Roughly.

Sir J. Grigg: In any case, I would not give dates of that sort. Then, at an early stage in this matter, the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) organised a petition to me from Members of this House. I have the list of names here. The hon. Member for Maldon pointed out some of the names. He reminded us of the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter). I do not think he mentioned the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), the hon. Member for Nelson and Collie (Mr. Silverman), and, of course, himself, and the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith. I could give him another signatory—the hon. Lady who represents the English Universities (Miss Rathbone). It was not until 27th


June that any of these hon. Members, even the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith, raised the matter in this House, which was, I think, the appropriate place to raise it. Six months had gone by before this frightful grievance, about which the "Daily Worker" complains, was raised. What could the reason be? I suggest that it was that it suited the "Daily Worker" to represent it as a personal act of spite on my part and that it was extremely anxious not to have the fact elicited that it was a decision of the War Cabinet.

Mr. Driberg: It was not the "Daily Worker" which caused the Question to be put in June. I put it down, on my own initiative, because the matter was brought to my mind very forcibly by that other court case.

Sir J. Grigg: I never made any suggestion which was intended to cast aspersions on the hon. Member. When it was raised on 27th June, my answer was a refusal to reconsider the decision, and, naturally, I was authorised to give that answer. In the course of some supplementaries, the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) accused me of being actuated by personal and political prejudices, and, in another supplementary on another Question, he suggested that I was an admirer of Mussolini. Perhaps the House will bear with me if, like a Prime Minister with one of his former private secretaries 20 years ago, I claim the right to make out a case for myself.
The decision, as I have said over and over again, was by the Government as a whole, and nobody can suppose that any prejudice on the part of a mere political tyro like me—and I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) for reminding the House that I am a political tyro—could be decisive in a decision of the War Cabinet; but, apart from that, I do not think that personal prejudices have played any part in producing my own decision on this matter. It is perfectly true that the "Daily Worker" has never been an admirer of me. It has, even before this incident, continually accused me, quite falsely, I must say, of being hostile to our Russian Allies. The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith has written a special pamphlet devoted to it.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case, and is it not on record, that the Minister once said "I am not against the Soviet Union"?

Sir J. Grigg: I was answering a Question whether I was hostile to the Soviet Union, put, I think, by the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith, and I said, "I am certainly not against the Soviet Union, but I certainly am pro-British."

Mr. Gallacher: If the Minister had been pro-British he would have been an Ally of the Soviet Union.

Sir J. Grigg: It is quite true that there have been some cases on which I had correspondence with the hon. and learned Member. His information seemed to me to be derived from unauthorised disclosures to himself on the part of some soldier or other sent through the "Daily Worker."

Mr. Pritt: If the Minister says that about me, let me say that never, in any one of the hundreds of letters I have written to him, have they originated in any way from the "Daily Worker." They have been about authorised or unauthorised disclosures by troops alone, and if they had not been made, the injustices complained of would have been even worse than they were.

Sir J. Grigg: Well, then, an authorised disclosure. It is also true that a good deal of the correspondence with my hon. and learned Friend has been in relation to people who got into trouble for breaches of discipline, but none of these would accuse me of being personally prejudiced against the "Daily Worker," or against him, even though their writings may take on a sour and perhaps abusive tone. When I was in India, I got used to the polemical methods of the Congress Party, one of the most totalitarian bodies in the world.

Mr. Pritt: What has that got to do with these correspondents?

Mr. Gallacher: What is the use of making a digression like that? At a time like this, does it show anything in the nature of political sense to make a digression like that and attack the Congress Party?

Sir J. Grigg: Having been abused by the "Daily Worker" every day for the


last six months, I think even the hon. Member for West Fife will not say I am not to be allowed to make my defence in my own way. If I remember aright, the "Daily Worker" has, on occasion, used my alleged hostility to the Congress Party as an instance of my prejudice against the workers. I will produce the reference if necessary. Anyhow, I can assure the hon. Member for West Fife that the utterances of the "Daily Worker" are mother's milk compared to the utterances of the organ of the Congress Party, and yet, while in India I found no difficulty in maintaining good private relations with my opponents. I am not likely to change my view at my time of life, and, anyway, I can answer for myself. As for political prejudice, I have to confess that I take a narrower view of the appropriate sphere of the State in enterprise than do hon. Members opposite, because, as the hon. Member for Oxford reminded the House, after being a civil servant for many years, I stood for East Cardiff as a non-party candidate and was adopted as their official candidate by both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party. The local Labour Party——

Mr. Mathers: Will you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, tell us what this has got to do with this discussion? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the arrangement by which he was allowed to talk on this matter was an arrangement made in good faith by myself, on the understanding that the Debate would be finished in about half an hour? The Debate has now gone on for practically an hour.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): I am perfectly well aware of the position, but I am also aware that almost all speeches are shorter if there are no interruptions. In so far as the Minister's speech is concerned, the Minister has just as much right as anybody to defend himself in this House.

Sir J. Grigg: I will hurry to the end of my remarks. I quite realise that the hon. Member made an arrangement to his discomfort and to my advantage, and I will try not to abuse it. On the same occasion, I had the support of the local Communist Party. There is not much here on which to base an accusation of totalitarian

propensities. Indeed I do not think that anybody can have a greater hatred of totalitarianism. I am by temperament an individualist and have been all my life. I have been a civil servant long enough to know that all State activity is interference and that it is by no means universally true, that interference is a good thing in itself. While I was in India I was accused—again by the Congress Party—of being, with the late Lord Snowden and Sir Walter Layton, one of the only three living believers in laissez-faire. That particular accusation was not true, but it does show an absence of any bias towards totalitarianism. But, beyond all that, no one who saw the humiliations of the abortive sanctions against Italy, and of Munich, from 5,000 miles away, and in the midst of an Indian political party which spent its time, somewhat inconsistently, in abusing Britain and the British for their exploitation and tyranny, and sneering at them for their decadence and feebleness—no one, I say, who had that grisly experience could ever have anything but a burning hatred of all forms of totalitarianism. If to have that, is to be politically prejudiced, I confess to being prejudiced. But have not hon. Members opposite, and indeed, hon. Members on all sides of the House, the same prejudices? I hope and believe so, and I am interested to note that the Labour Party has continued to reject all the appeals of the Communist Party for affiliation.

Mr. Gallacher: What has that to do with the "Daily Worker"? That is a question between us and the Labour Party.

Sir J. Grigg: I will come to that. I would remind hon Members opposite of the terms of my original answer, whch contains the reasons for the decisions, and the reasons are perfectly good today.
In view of the paramount importance of security measures in connection with military operations, His Majesty's Government"—
not the Secretary of State for War—
are not prepared to accord special facilities to this newspaper, which is the propagandist medium of the Communist Party of Great Britain. In recent times some of its members or adherents have shown that they are ready to subordinate the security of the State to the purposes of the Organisation. I have, therefore, caused a letter to be sent to the Editor of the "Daily Worker," which reads as follows:


'It is desired to affirm the right to reject any candidate for the position of Accredited Correspondent to the Armed Forces without stating any reason. Such decisions are taken in the light of the overriding necessity to safeguard secret military information, and particularly that relating to future military operations.
It is for these reasons that your candidates have been rejected in the past. The question has recently been considered again and you are hereby informed that no correspondent of the "Daily Worker" will be regarded as suitable for the position of Accredited Correspondent to the Armed Forces. Accredited Correspondents receive military information and facilities not available to other members of the Press or of the public. Recent experience, drawn in part from the cases of D. F. Springhall and O. L. Uren, has made it clear that members and adherents of the Communist Party cannot be trusted not to communicate secret information to the Communist Party. It is in the light of this that the decision of His Majesty's Government has been taken.
The hon. Member for Maldon said he hoped that I would not refer to the Springhall case. I must refer to the Springhall and Uren cases. I cannot dislose details of these, but I can say that I believe that hon. Members would be horrified if they knew them. All I can say at present is that the prompt arrest of Springhall and his accomplice prevented the leakage of further information about the experimental development of important equipment which, if disclosed to the enemy at that time, would have jeopardised future operations.

Mr. Pritt: If the right hon. Gentleman is disclosing things said in court, will he please disclose also that the judge said that there was not a trace of any kind of intention to disclose anything to the enemy?

Sir J. Grigg: I will come to that later. Captain Uren certainly passed on information of a highly secret character which he had acquired, and only could have acquired, in the course of his official duties, and he gave this information to Springhall, not as an individual, but because he was an official of the Communist Party. It has been suggested that, as war correspondents have to submit their despatches for censorship, the censors could be relied on to prevent publication of secret information by the "Daily Worker." The danger lies not so much in the publication—Springhall did not publish the information he gathered—but in the unauthorised collection of these vital secrets for an unknown purpose. An

accredited war correspondent must inevitably communicate, or at any rate is in a position to communicate, to his editor much secret information which is not for publication. The editorial staff of the "Daily Worker" includes a number of long-established members of the Communist Party, and it is to these persons that His Majesty's Government are not prepared that knowledge of forthcoming operations should be entrusted. The decision was taken on grounds of security, and security in effect means the lives of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and merchant seamen.
The hon. Member for Maldon says—and the hon. Member for West Fife made the same point—why not treat everybody alike? What about this case of the Kemsley newspapers? I will tell the House about this. The disclosure here was the fact that three battalions, all of which it was permissible to mention separately, were in a single brigade. The newspapers in question took the view that the Censor was being unreasonable, and, to test their view, defied him. The Censor's view was upheld by the Courts. I cannot imagine that the particular newspapers will embark on a policy of defying the Censor. If they did it would be a matter of which no Government could fail to take notice. And I assure the House that whatever the newspaper, the decision of the Government will be arrived at in the interests of security. Whatever is done is done in the interests of security, in spite of the sneers of the hon. Member for Oxford.

Mr. Hogg: Mr. Hogg rose——

Sir J. Grigg: It will be arrived at——

Mr. Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman withdraw it or not?

Sir J. Grigg: I withdraw it. It will be arrived at in the interest of security, which, I repeat, is not a mere act of tyranny on the part of some special organisation or special Gestapo, but means minimising the danger to the lives of those who are enduring so much for us.

FORTH ROAD BRIDGE

Mr. Mathers: If I were to take time in expressing the feelings of grievance that I have for regarding the manner in which I accommodated myself to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary


of State for War I would waste time in putting the case I am very anxious to put, that case being in relation to the project for a Forth Road Bridge, which I want to put to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport. The right hon. Gentleman apologises and I will discuss that apology with him on an appropriate occasion. He has apologised for keeping us so late with this Debate which should have come on much earlier in these proceedings.
There is a very considerable background to this project of a Forth Road Bridge and I hope the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), both of whom are present, will use their influence to see that justice is done to Scotland in this matter. I do not want to go into ancient history. If I did, I would be able to show that there was a project and plans were prepared for a road bridge across the Firth of Forth near Queensferry, as a matter of fact at exactly the site later chosen by the railway companies——

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain McEwen.]

Mr. Mathers: The site finally chosen for the railway project was the one that had been originally projected in 1818 for a road bridge across the Forth near Queensferry since that was obviously the natural crossing. However, I do not want to get involved at the moment in questions of sites. I will only take the House back in recent history to the Debate that took place in another place on 22nd July, 1936. Seeing that that is a past Session, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I think I shall be in Order in making quotations from the speech of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies at that time, who answered for the Government the very full case that was put up for the project of a Forth Road Bridge at the Mackintosh Rock site. In the course of his remarks he said that the question had recently been revived and:
 … It was in October of last year—(1935)—that agreement was reached between the local authorities that the Mackintosh Rock

site was the best site that could be found. The Minister agrees that if a bridge is to be built at all, this undoubtedly is the most suitable site. The cost of it, I understand, has been estimated at £3,250,000. …
That was the comment at that time, I ask the House to note, upon the question of a site that had been agreed by the combined local authorities working in the form of an organisation naming itself the Forth Road Bridge Promotion Committee. The Earl of Plymouth on that occasion in the same Debate said:
It cannot be considered in any sense an official committee, and it does not carry any direct responsibility for this project. Therefore I think your Lordships will agree that obviously the Minister would not be justified in reaching a conclusion on the statement of this body alone.
There are other remarks made in that speech which I would have quoted if there had been more time, but I draw attention to the fact that in 1935 and in 1936 the local authorities were committed to the putting forward of their claim for a bridge on the basis of the erection being made at the Mackintosh Rock site. Since that time the Ministry has apparently been depending very largely upon the local authorities, organised in this body that I have named, for guidance as to what the views of the local authorities were about where this bridge should be placed. It is true that the Ministry at no time has completely committed itself to the erection of a bridge, but the encouragement that has been given to the promoters, and the kind of considerations that have been put to the promoters by the Minister of Transport, have definitely established the feeling in Scotland, and especially in the area more particularly served, that there was a real intention on the part of the Ministry to have a bridge at that point. When there was consideration of the various sites there was the more ambitious project of a bridge nearer the sea, to the East of the railway bridge. That was the choice for a time, but it was given up when it was found that the cost would be about £6,000,000. Just before this war the idea of erecting a bridge was abandoned on the urge of the Ministry that it would not be a practical proposition when steel was being so much used in our war preparations. Quite rightly and patriotically the local authorities did not urge an the Government, after that, the question of building a road bridge during


the war. But in view of the fact that more recently they have been asked to indicate their views as to the merits of all schemes which have recently been put before local authorities, and which are in a measure still before them, they have felt that owing to the need to look ahead to the post-war period a decision should be made by the Government and a declaration made by them on this matter. It may be pointed out that to offset the building of a bridge at Queensferry after the last war, a bridge at Kincardine, and an improved ferry service, were provided but these have not met the needs of the situation.
We are now asking, nay, demanding, on behalf of Scotland, that a decision should be arrived at in regard to this matter and that that decision should be, must be, favourable to the idea of a bridge being built in this part of Scotland in order to help complete the great North Road and make this an important link in the road system of Scotland. It is claimed that a bridge at this point on one site or the other should have very high priority. When I say that, I am not saying that we should divert steel—the bridge will be largely steel—or labour that would properly be going to the erection of houses. We would not say that this should stand in the way of the provision of houses, but we are entitled to say that if very high priority, as we understand it, can be given to the project of a bridge across the Severn, linking Wales with England, there should be no objection to making a decision with regard to the Forth Road Bridge. We are not aware that the question of the Severn Bridge has been prominently in hand so long as the question of the bridge across the Forth. If there is a justification for the one there is the same, or almost the same, justification for the other.
I said just now that I did not want to enter into the battle of the sites. Owing to what was understood to be the Ministry's wish the local authorities have done their best to get complete agreement about the Mackintosh Rock site and a number of people who have their views about that site have allowed themselves to be set aside in order that unity should not be disturbed. But when we get an answer such as I got from the Parliamentary Secretary on Tuesday I think we

are entitled to say that obviously this question of site has not been settled and that the Ministry must come in and settle it. The answer I got shocked me. I am glad I got it as a written answer. If I had got it across the Floor I should have been speechless and could not have put a supplementary to it. It has caused very considerable indignation in Scotland, where the question is exciting a good deal of attention. The answer was:
My Noble Friend does not think it opportune to come to a conclusion upon the alternative sites for a road bridge across the Firth of Forth in present circumstances."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st August, 1944; Vol. 402, C. 1183.]
What does that mean? When will it be opportune to come to a conclusion? What are the present circumstances which deny to Scotland the satisfaction of this demand for a decision? Further, in respect to the varying sites, have they been properly examined in an independent way by Ministry engineers, and why is it that after this lapse of time no preference even can be indicated for one site or the other? I am entitled to ask this further point because I have been denied an opportunity of putting it to the Admiralty, who are involved. I was told I could not put a question as to their views because, although it affects them, it was a matter for the Ministry of War Transport. Has the Ministry of War Transport consulted the Admiralty about the possibility of interfering with shipping up and down the Firth of Forth? What is the Admiralty view on the point? It should have been ascertained by the Ministry of War Transport and it should be made known to those interested in the matter. Equally important, it seems to me, is the question of demanding a decision now in order that the planning of the area which is going forward on both sides of the Forth may be carried out to the best possible advantage. The chairman of the planning committee for the area indicated to Members of Parliament who gathered in Edinburgh and had a discussion on the matter last week that the Committee's plans were completely held up in important respects because they had no knowledge whether there was to be a bridge across the Forth and where exactly it was to stand.
What stands in the way? Is it the railway interests? Surely, he will not allow that to stand in the way. I would


not allow it to stand in the way although I am a railway man myself and I realise the importance of the matter from their point of view. I am hoping that we need not consider individual railway interests in a matter of this kind at this date. I am looking forward to there being one great comprehensive railway organisation in this country after the war, whether under private or public ownership.
We are asked to put aside our private interests, prejudices, and partial affections, and I consider it my public and patriotic duty to insist on the Ministry of Transport discussing this matter, deciding upon it and indicating their decision to the people of Scotland. I want to know what conditions there are still to be satisfied before the Minister of Transport can give a decision. It has been indicated that he looks upon himself as a Minister of War Transport, concerned only with things relating to the period of the war. He cannot evade his responsibility in that way. He is Minister of Transport. Plans are being made for the future, and on this important matter the Minister must take a decision. In the name of those who have been putting forward this project for many years, a project which is completely justified by the traffic, I demand that this attitude of the Ministry be ended and that a decision be taken at the earliest possible moment and made available to us when we return from the Recess.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I should like to assure the Minister that this question has not been raised in any sense as a party matter. It is a matter of general interest in Scotland, and we are all extremely desirous of having the matter advanced a step. In the great railway age the Forth Bridge was built, and as we are now passing into a road age it seems almost essential that a road link between the two sides of the Forth should be constructed. It is true to say that there is a great deal of uncertainty about the best site, about the methods of construction, and so on, which in the long run only the Ministry of Transport will be able to resolve. It is unfortunately true that such great projects demand a long time in planning if they are to be successful. No doubt, from the accounts I have heard from eminent engineers, the matter has advanced very considerably in the

greater skill in engineering which is now available as compared with the skill which was available even a few years ago, let alone the long period since 1818 to which my hon. Friend referred. The matter is now coming well within the range of a great engineering project. The great conceptions which are available in modern engineering make it quite possible to build a bridge more cheaply as time goes on—a remarkable and welcome contrast to many other projects. It is true to say that in Scotland the industrial areas of the centre are becoming worked out, and it is necessary that we should develop the great coastal coal areas, both of the East and of the West. That is becoming more and more manifest, and one of the fields obviously marked out for development is the Fife coalfield. The possibility of great industrial development which will not reproduce the ugly characteristics of the development of the early years of the industrial revolution offers itself to us. Therefore, I hope that we shall have a favourable response from the Minister.

Mr. Hubbard: To-day we find Scotland given the treatment that it usually gets in this House, of being relegated to the end of the programme. I want to suggest that this road bridge, so long promised to Scotland, has a definite bearing upon post-war reconstruction, especially in connection with the development of roads. The planning committee must know where there will be a bridge because if there is to be a road bridge, all roads must lead to it in that area.
I would like to point out that the development of industry has been held up for many years, almost as many years as it has taken the Government to make up their minds whether they will go on with the building of this road bridge. When the war is ended it may be that the existence of this bridge would justify the further development of shipbuilding in the area. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken mentioned the development of the coalfields in this connection also. I do not think the people of Scotland will accept the answer that no plans have been made, whether it is by the Minister of Transport or by the Minister of War Transport. It is obvious that no plans can be made for Scotland until we get the Minister's decision whether or not the Government are going on with the proposed Forth Road


Bridge. I hope that the House is not going to get a purely negative reply, but that the Minister will offer something to Scotland so that Scotland may be able to take its rightful place in the development of housing, which is complementary to industry. If we are going to build a bridge, it will have a big bearing on where we are to build our houses. I sit down, having gone half a minute beyond the time I proposed, in order to hear the Minister's reply.

Mr. Woodburn: This Debate is a concentration of Scotland's purpose in this matter. I hope that the Minister and his Noble Friend will not think that the shortness of the Debate is symbolic of the patience that Scotland has shown in this matter, because his Ministry has been fiddling about over this Forth Road Bridge for over 20 years. While we are a very patient race, Scotland is just about reaching the end of its patience at the way in which it has been treated with regard to some of these major projects. If it is a question of a bridge in London, everybody is interested, and the bridge has to be provided immediately. London is of no use as the office of the Empire, unless the hinterland is economically prosperous. It cannot be of use to have an office in London for the Empire and for the country, unless Scotland and the other industrial districts are properly equipped with a means of transport. This bridge would be a life artery for Scotland. Because it is not there, Scotland's development is being throttled. The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) told us that the bridge would be a vital necessity for the development of industry in the area. There is a growing resentment over the treatment that has been given to us in the matter of this Forth Road Bridge. I want to say frankly to his Noble Friend, and I hope that the Minister here will convey it to him, that handing the matter over to local authorities to squabble about is regarded as an excuse to rid the Ministry of a responsibility which must in the end be theirs. The Ministry of Transport have laid down the specifications for the bridge and they will eventually decide where the bridge will be, so it is no use asking the local authorities to wrangle about sites, which are a technical matter to be decided by the officers of the Ministry.
I hope that the Minister will realise that this is a serious matter and not a matter for temporary stunting in Scotland. It will become more serious as time goes on, and unless plans are laid now there is no possibility of the project being started until three, four or five years after the war. If the plans are not ready by the end of the war, it is certain that the industry of Scotland will suffer and that very great resentment will be visited on the Government at that time.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): I cannot detain the House for any length of time, even if I so desired, and I am afraid that in the few minutes I occupy I shall not give my hon. Friends any very great cause for satisfaction, but I hope they will not think that because my reply is brief we have not treated this matter in a serious manner. My hon. Friend said that for many years we had dealt with it frivolously. I do not think that is true. Certainly we have no desire to throw it back to the local authorities to wrangle over. I have given it a good deal of attention. I have studied the plans, read the papers and been to Scotland and, with my hon. Friend and under the guidance of my Ministry's divisional road engineer, I have inspected the rival sites. My interest in the subject has been greatly heightened by what my hon. Friends on both sides have said to-day. I think the best thing I can say to them is that I will submit the very eloquent and persuasive arguments they have laid before the House to my Noble Friend. I can certainly promise them that he and his advisers will consider, with all the care they deserve, the cogent arguments brought forward to-day.
About the site, as has been said, neither the Inchgarvie nor the Mackintosh Rock site is the first or only one to be considered. There was the old Dalmeny site proposal, and in 1934 the Beamer Rock. There have been a good many variants of these four basic propositions. I am not satisfied in my own mind that everything that would require consideration has yet been considered from the technical point of view. If and when the time comes for my Noble Friend to make a decision about these technical matters he will have to consider whether the bridge will be adequate for the traffic it must


carry many years ahead. I do not think it could be considered adequate unless it could carry a dual carriage-way. It is a basic policy of the Ministry to segregate traffic into two directional streams, both on safety and traffic grounds. The bridge would have to carry footpaths for pedestrians and cycle paths. I am not sure that the plans now prepared allow for these things, and they might therefore have to be modified when the time came. My hon. Friends and the local authorities are at one with me in thinking that the aesthetic aspect of the matter is of the highest importance. The existing Forth Bridge is one of the glories of Britain, and no plan must be passed which would endanger the beauty of that bridge. The new bridge, if there is to be one, must be the equal of the bridge which now exists. On all these matters, on every technical and aesthetic aspect of the project, my Noble Friend, if and when the time comes for him to make a decision about the site, will take the best advice he can get. I can give my hon. Friends a definite pledge about that.
While my hon. Friends were talking about an inquiry into the rival merits of different sites, what they really want is a

decision that this bridge shall be built. I cannot really hold out a hope that a decision will be made at any very early date. They are aware that if the plan were carried through my Ministry would have to put up by far the greater part of the total costs. But after the war my Ministry will be faced with great expenditure for public works for transport of all kinds. We have at least £35,000,000 of deferred maintenance work on our existing roads, and we shall need large-scale new road constructions and improvements both to assist necessary economic development and on road safety grounds. The Forth Bridge is not the only estuarial crossing which we shall be, and are being, asked to consider. There is the Severn Bridge of which my hon. Friend has spoken. There is a crossing for almost every estuary round our coasts; there is Hull; three crossings of the Tyne are being asked for; I have had representations——

It being the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order, till Tuesday, 26th September, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 2nd August.